Full text of "Translated Texts for Historians"

See other formats

The Lives of the
Ninth-Century Popes

(Liber Pontificalis)

Translated with an introduction
and commentary by
RAYMOND DAVIS

LIVERPOOL

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

I-1-

Translated Texts for Historians

This series is designed to meet the needs of students of ancient and
medieval history and others who wish to broaden their study by reading
source material, but whose knowledge of Latin or Greek is not sufficient
to allow them to do so in the original languages. Many important Late
Imperial and Dark Age texts are currently unavailable in translation and
it is hoped that TTH will help to fill this gap and to complement the
secondary literature in English which already exists. The series relates
principally to the period 300-800 AD and includes Late Imperial, Greek,
Byzantine and Syriac texts as well as source books illustrating a
particular period or theme. Each volume is a self-contained scholarly
translation with an introductory essay on the text and its author and
notes on the text indicating major problems of interpretation, including
textual difficulties.

Editorial Committee

Sebastian Brock, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford

Averil Cameron, Keble College, Oxford

Henry Chadwick, Oxford

John Davies, University of Liverpool

Carlotta Dionisotti, King’s College London

Peter Heather, University College London

Robert Markus, University of Nottingham

John Matthews, Queen’s College, Oxford

Raymond Van Dam, University of Michigan

Michael Whitby, University of Warwick

Ian Wood, University of Leeds

General Editors

Gillian Clark, University of Liverpool
Mary Whitby, Royal Holloway, London

Front cover: Part of base of gold-glass beaker in the British Museum, c. 4th Century AD.

A full list of published titles in the Translated Texts
for Historians series is available from the publishers.

The following are the most recent published volumes:

The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes {Liber Pontificalis)

Translated with an introduction and commentary by RAYMOND DAVIS

Volume 20: 360pp., 1995, ISBN 0-85323-479-5

Bede: On the Temple

Translated with notes by SEAN CONNOLLY,
introduction by JENNIFER O’REILLY

Volume 21: 192pp., 1995, ISBN 0-85323-049-8

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle , Part III
Translated with notes and introduction by WITOLD WITAKOWSKI

Volume 22: 192pp., 1995, ISBN 0-85323-'60-3

Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems
translated with notes and introduction by JUDITH GEORGE

Volume 23: 192pp.. 1995, ISBN 0-85323-179-6

For full details of Translated Texts for Historians, including prices and
ordering information, please write to the following:

All countries , except the USA and Canada: Liverpool University
Press, Senate House, Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK
{tel 0151-794 2233, fax 0151-708 6502).

USA and Canada : University of Pennsylvania Press, Blockley Hall,
418 Service Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6097, USA {tel [2151 898-
6264, fax [215] 898-0404).

Translated Texts for Historians
Volume 20

The Lives of the
Ninth-Century Popes

(Liber Pontificalis)

THE ANCIENT BIOGRAPHIES OF
TEN POPES FROM A.D. 817-891

Translated with an introduction
and commentary by

RAYMOND DAVIS

Liverpool

University

Press

I-1-

First published 1995 by
Liverpool University Press
Senate House
Abercromby Square
Liverpool

L69 3BX

All rights reserved. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form
without permission in writing from the
publishers, except by a reviewer in
connection with a review for inclusion
in a magazine or newspaper.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A British Library CIP Record is available
ISBN 0-85323-479*5

Printed in the European Union by
Page Bros, Norwich, England

CONTENTS

Preface vii

Introduction ix

The Manuscripts of the Liber Pontificalis

for the lives from A.D. 817 onwards xiii

Texts and commentaries xv

Abbreviations xvi

The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes

100

Paschal (817-824):

introduction

translation

101

Eugene 11 (824-827):

introduction

translation

102

Valentine (827):

introduction

translation

103

Gregory IV (828-844):

introduction

translation

104

Sergius 11 (844-847):

introduction

translation

105

Leo IV (847-855):

introduction

chronology and summary

108

translation

111

106

Benedict III (855-858):

introduction

161

translation

167

107

Nicholas (858-867):

introduction

189

chronology of life 107

203

translation

205

108

Hadrian II (867-872):

introduction

249

translation

259

Addendum: Life 108 in MS Parisinus 2400

293

(there are no lives numbered 109-111)

112

Stephen V (885-891):

introduction

295

translation

297

Glossary

309

Bibliography

319

Index of Persons and Places

325

Map of Rome in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries at end of volume

PREFACE

This volume fulfils the promise made in the introduction to my
Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes. It contains a translation of and
commentary on some three-eighths of the Liber Pontifical is of the
Roman church, from A.D. 817 to the point where what Duchesne called
Tancien livre pontifical’ finally expires. The precise terminal date is
given on the title page as A.D. 891, but the reader should be warned
that the text of the life of Hadrian II stops at the end of the year 870,
that there is then a gap for the last two years of that pope’s life, that the
next three popes are omitted entirely, and that the fragment dealing with
Stephen V (886-891) breaks off after perhaps no more than the first
year or two of his pontificate. No lives were written for the next two
centuries. Many manuscripts contain catalogues with little beyond the
names and tenures of the popes in this period. These catalogues may be
found in Duchesne’s edition (and see Piazzoni 1989-90), but are not
included here, any more than are the more extended biographies which
were resumed from the time of Gregory VII and were continued by
various writers down to the fifteenth century.

The format of the present volume is very closely modelled on that
covering the eighth century, and the introduction to that volume explains
the policies adopted with regard to the numbering of the chapters
(Vignoli’s system as given in Duchesne’s text), the paragraphing (almost
entirely Duchesne’s), and the rendering of proper names. As before, the
text translated is Duchesne’s, though his punctuation is not held
sacrosanct; attention is drawn in the commentary to a few small
variations from his text, and there too will be found suggestions for
some of the loci corrupti which that great scholar did not attempt to
mend. Year-headings are inserted where Geertman’s study ( More
veterum) of the building-works and donations in certain of these lives
enabled him to establish the year-divisions in the archival documents
incorporated in the text; they are likely to be at least approximately
correct. For the lengthy life of Leo IV, not analysed by Geertman, I
have ventured a chronology (pp. 108-110) but not risked inserting it into
the translation; so too for the life of Nicholas (pp. 203-4). In the
commentary I have attempted to include whatever material in
Duchesne’s notes still seems valid and useful.

As before, my debts are many. T. F. X. Noble’s Republic of St
Peter has remained of great benefit for the lives of the earlier part of
this century; for the later lives Janet Nelson’s works have been
invaluable, especially her translation of the Annals of St-Bertin ,
published (1991) in the Manchester series of Ninth-Century Histories.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

• • •
vm

I have been particularly fortunate in having had the services of Clive
Cheesman, who has pondered the entire translation and made large
numbers of suggestions for improvement, the great majority of which
I have adopted; his influence has been much greater than it has been
possible to acknowledge in the commentary. My colleagues in Belfast
have also been most helpful: I single out Brian Scott who has so readily
shared with me his thoughts on many ‘difficult’ passages that I
submitted to him, and Margaret Mullett and Dion Smyth who have been
a mine of information on matters Byzantine; Fred Williams and Brian
Campbell have also supplied useful advice. Errors that remain are, of
course, my own responsibility. The map of Rome, reproduced from the
earlier volume, results from the cartographic skills of Christa Mee. I am
most grateful to the Queen’s University of Belfast for a grant towards
the costs of publication.

It is a great sadness to me that Margaret Gibson, to whose learning,
encouragement, common sense, enthusiasm, and practical advice
throughout this project I, with all contributors to this series, owe so
much, has not lived to see the publication of this volume.

INTRODUCTION

In this volume are given the last ten lives from the ancient,
continuous, Liber Pontificalis of the Roman Church. The lives differ
markedly from each other in character: the broken fragment of life 101
(Eugene II) composed in very simple language; the lengthy high-flown
eulogy in life 102 of the ephemeral pope Valentine. Yet (except for
102) all the lives down to 107 (Nicholas) are much taken up with lists
of building-works and enrichments for churches at Rome. Life 107,
however, has been reworked; as is explained in the introduction to that
life (p. 189), the text was taken over by a writer (possibly John
Hymmonides the Deacon) who inserted a number of historical passages,
some even at the cost of excising parts of an already-prepared text;
while life 108, which contains no material on buildings and endowments
and is probably the work of the interpolator of life 107, is entirely
devoted to ‘straight history 5 .

Life 108 in fact breaks off two years before the death of its subject,
albeit with a good finishing flourish. The introduction to that life (pp.
249-50) suggests that the author’s political views and the politics of the
time would have made it very difficult for him to continue without
treading on thin ice. And the next three popes found (it seems) no
biographers. Then life 112 (Stephen V), a mere fragment, shows that the
task of compilation was again taken up after an interval of some 15
years; the author of this fragment plays safe by incorporating, uniquely,
a sermon delivered by the pope against witchcraft and against talking in
church. But the fragment was a mere flicker before the LP was finally
extinguished.

What caused this cessation? An answer to this question may provide
some insight into the very nature of the LP. Undoubtedly the troubles
of the Roman church in the next few decades played a part in the failure
of papal biographers to continue their task: under the short-lived
successors of Formosus, violently quarrelling with each other over their
attitude to Formosus, it would have been as difficult for biographers to
write as it was for the author of life 108 to finish his task. Even so, had
they confined themselves, as the authors of many earlier lives did, to
neutral statements about the background and ordination of each pope,
and then to listing endowments, the task would not have been
impossible. The LP ceased mainly because it had already been taken out
of the hands of authors who were prepared to write in this way, and
thus the tradition of compilation in the milieu from which earlier lives
had emerged had already been broken.

Who, then, were the anonymous biographers who had compiled the

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

LP decade after decade, and why had they done so? I remain satisfied
that Duchesne was right to see in the vestiarium at the Lateran the
milieu in which generations of compilers lived and worked. The view
has been challenged. Caspar thought that Duchesne was right only for
the lives down to the middle of the eighth century, after which stage the
compilers came from the Lateran scrinium (chancery). In an important
article Noble (1985) holds that the authors throughout were notaries
from the chancery. He stresses the reference to the creation by pope
Fabian in the mid-third century of notaries to record martyr-acts (LP
21:2, BP 8); the remark about the death of Ambrose, primicerius of the
notaries (94:24); and the concentration in life 96 on the career of the
primicerius Christopher. Yet the statement about Fabian is legendary, if
not fiction; the death of Ambrose is an interpolation into the text; and
it would hardly have been possible to deal with the pontificate of
Stephen III without giving prominence to Christopher. It is more
significant that in life 97 (cc. 64, 67) the compiler adds epithets in
commendation of Januarius, the vestiarius then in post. Nowhere else in
the LP is any Lateran bureaucrat praised. The author of this late eighth-
century life was surely Januarius’s subordinate; and there seems no
reason why most of the lives of the ninth century should not come from
the same milieu, just as lives before the seventh century had done: note,
for instance, the interest shown in the sacking of the vestiarium by
Maurice and Isaac before the ordination of pope Severinus in 640 (73:1-
5, BP 65-6). There may be exceptions: perhaps the history of the fall of
the Lombard kingdom which forms the first part of the life of Hadrian
1 is from elsewhere. But otherwise it seems much more satisfactory to
assume that the LP, devoting as it does so much space to church
buildings and enrichment, comes from the hands of clerks who worked
in the very office where these matters were the prime concern. Perhaps,
though, it matters little whether the writers came from one Lateran
office or another. It is enough to accept that until Nicholas’s time they
were not among the ecclesiastical or lay nobility of Rome; they were,
relatively, humble clerks.

Why did they write at all? As explained in my Book of Pontiffs (iv-
v), the origins of the LP are to be found in the propaganda battles of the
schism at the very beginning of the sixth century when Symmachus and
Laurentius fought for possession of the Roman see. Once written and
consolidated by interested contemporaries down to 530 and then 538,
the work was left aside. The quality of the rest of the sixth-century lives
does not suggest a contemporary compiler. But from some point in the

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

first half of the seventh century (perhaps under Honorius) the lives
become ongoing compilations by contemporary writers; and I can see
no reason to suppose that this ever ceased to be so, even in the ninth
century (note especially the curious case, already mentioned, of the life
of pope Valentine), though naturally one cannot exclude touching up
after the death of the subject of each biography. Why, then, from the
early seventh century to the late ninth did contemporary clerks compile
these biographies? Never to be underestimated is the ‘lethargy-factor’:
a job was to be done because it had ‘always’ (as compilers would have
imagined) been done, much as ceremonies continue to be performed
long after their purpose has been forgotten. Nor, in so far as there were
more positive purposes, should we conclude that these were necessarily
the same in each generation; or that the motives of compilers can
necessarily be deduced from the uses to which the finished product was
put.

Noble (1985) suggests three motives: the LP was an official version
of papal history for the training of young clerics; but, since much of the
material was too advanced for use at this level, it was also to be a
ready-reference work for veterans; and it was to act as an inventory of
archives (presumably, though, the archives of the vestiarium rather than
those of the chancery). That the LP may have been used at Lucca for
the education of clerics (though to what purpose is baffling) tells
nothing about the education of clerics at Rome; and I cannot help
feeling that if the LP was used as a textbook someone would at some
point have done something about the Latin style and syntax. Some
Roman clergy may have learnt from it; but I cannot believe it was
written to be part of a regular curriculum. The second motive suggested
supposes that the record of relations, political or ecclesiastical, with
Byzantines, Lombards and Franks is complete enough to be useful. It is
not; for the Franks it is sufficient to note the hiatus in the account of
Charlemagne’s dealings with Hadrian I and Leo III from 774 to 799 and
after 800, or the inadequate account given in the life of Gregory IV,
which manages not to mention that pope’s personal intervention north
of the Alps. The third suggested motive depends on what, to us, is self-
evident: a record office is useless without an inventory or catalogue of
some kind. Yet if the LP was written to provide an archival inventory,
it is difficult to see how a researcher would actually be helped by it to
find anything. We should not assume that any ancient archive was easy
to consult, or that the order of documents was ever more than
chronological (if that). Archives were kept as often as not, I suspect,

XII

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

because it seemed wrong to throw documents away, rather than in any
expectation that the preserved material would be consulted, or with any
plan to make life easy for researchers. The ‘lethargy-factor’ worked here
as well. The archive material which is incorporated in the LP (in a very
summary fashion and with no obvious principle of selection) is there
because it recorded what was, in the rather narrow outlook of the
compilers, the chief way in which each pope had glorified God, St
Peter, and the Roman church - the institution with which the authors’
loyalty lay. It is this loyalty, not their deliberate purpose, that they
reveal. As Noble (1985:356) rightly stresses, by compiling an
institutional history of an unprecedented kind the writers succeeded in
depicting the ‘ceaseless march through time of a seemingly timeless
institution’. But I doubt whether that was the conscious motive of any
of the successive biographers.

Under Nicholas the compilation was taken over by one or more
writers from a higher status in society, whose purpose was closer to
what we understand as historiographical, but who soon found that the
task of writing both fully and honestly was one that they could not
sustain. Compilation ceased because the tradition was cut; except for its
brief flicker under Stephen V the candle was snuffed out. Even the last
lives that had been compiled seem not to have become widely known,
even at Rome. When in the late 930s Flodoard of Rheims visited Rome
to find material for the verses he was composing on all the popes back
to Peter, he was well received by pope Leo VII, and the finished
product shows that he had access to a copy of the LP. But his copy, it
is clear, did not extend beyond life 107 (Nicholas); for the next 22
popes, but never earlier, his verses depend on the verse epitaphs on the
papal graves at St Peter’s, many of which still survive and can be
compared with his efforts (his only other source for this period seems
to have been the letters exchanged between the popes and the
archbishops of Rheims). Even life 108 (Hadrian II) was unavailable to
him, let alone the fragment on Stephen V or any other lives if such
existed. It is hardly likely that he was denied access to an up-dated LP,
or that having made the effort to come to Rome he was too unconcerned
to seek it out (Duchesne II. IX-XI).

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

The manuscript tradition and variant recensions.

The later the life, the fewer the manuscripts. This results from the fact that our
surviving MSS are all copies of on-going texts which left Rome at different dates and
therefore ended at different points. The earlier the text left Rome, the longer the
opportunities for its diffusion. By life 100, with which the present volume begins, there
are only five manuscripts of the ftill text, and the situation deteriorates even further in the
ninth century. Lives 109 to 111 are missing entirely (if they were ever written), while the
last paragraph of life 112, the last in the series, is known from only one manuscript, itself
incomplete.

Apart from normal textual variants, the manuscripts bear witness to different
recensions; the text did not have the sacrosanctity of a literary work, and the very fact of
its anonymity may even have encouraged interpolations in and modifications to the
existing text. In some cases manuscripts show a strong tendency to regularize spelling and
grammar to accord with classical norms. In the present volume, the most startling textual
variation is in the second half of life 104, where the lost E 5 provided a totally different
recension; and political considerations may explain the absence of life 106 from C 4 and
the fact that D ends with life 105.

Until the 11th century editorial activity only occasionally took the form of deliberate
excision of material. But from the 11th century on, new recensions were produced which
treated the ancient text in a much more cavalier fashion. For example, the earliest of these,
that of Adh^mar of Chabannes, has a text down to life 105 showing many alterations to
the text and heavily abbreviating longer lives by excising most of the register-type
material on donations and repairs to churches as no longer of interest. The same can be
said of other medieval recensions. In the twelfth century Cardinal Pandulf produced what
is known as the ‘third edition’ of the LP (known from the Codex Dertusensis and from
Petrus Gulielmus’ manuscript, Vaticanus 3762, see Pferovsky’s edition), which was itself
designed as a preliminary to newly composed lives beginning with Gregory VII. Medieval
recensions are not much help for the text of the earlier lives; at the most they reflect the
readings of one manuscript of the standard text which was used to produce a new edition.
The recensions provide, in Duchesne’s view, no help in any of the difficult passages.

THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LIBER PONTIFICALIS
FOR THE LIVES FROM A.D. 817 ONWARDS.

Group C:

C 4 : Parisinus 5140, 11th century, has the lives down to 105:109, followed by 107
and 108; earlier parts of the text, which can be compared with other MSS of the group,
show that it thoroughly reworks the style and grammar; Duchesne found it difficult to
record its readings but gave them where he considered them important.

Group D:

D: Parisinus 5516, from Tours, written before mid-871; Duchesne preferred its
readings to those of other MSS for lives 98fF. It lacks 102 and ends at 105:66 (a second
hand continues to 105:79). For these lives Duchesne gives all its readings other than
spelling variants.

Group E:

E 1 : Vaticanus 3764, from Cava or Farfa, end of 11th century; this is the only
manuscript which continues through to the last known paragraph of life 112. Five copies,
made in the 16th and 17th centuries, are known, and it was the basis of all the pre-
Duchesne editions. Duchesne gives its readings in full, even the very frequent grammatical
improvements, and also the corrections made in the MS, which he thinks represent a

XIV

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

collation with its original.

E 2 : Parisinus 5143, 14th century, is much the same as E 1 but, though not derived
from it, is less valuable; it stops at 112:18.

E 5 (lost): Farnesianus, an uncial 9th century MS; some folios were already missing
when the existing collations by Holstein and Bianchini were made; the MS then contained,
of the present lives, only part of 104 (in a startlingly different recension, known also to
pseudo-Liutprand). Duchesne gives all known details of its readings; from 104:21 he
prints its text in a separate column. For earlier lives its text was close to E 126 ; its loss is
unfortunate given the late date of MSS of this class, and it is even more unfortunate that
before its disappearance so much was already missing, most tantalizingly the last part of
104.

E 6 : Laurentianus LXVI, 35, 15th century (closest to E 12 but full of faults, gaps, and
arbitrary changes); it stops at 112:15.

Duchesne saw no point in regularly giving the readings of E 26 . But where all other MSS
fail in the last part of 105 and all of 106 and 112, rather than follow E l alone he does
consider E 26 , even though all three are members of the same group.

The later recensions are represented by the following MSS.

The recension compiled c. 1030 by Adh^mar of Chabannes is represented by:

Alentianus 18, 11th century (has the lives down to 105:84; the manuscript was used
by Orderic Vitalis as source for his own brief lives of the popes, appended to Book II of
his Ecclesiastical History);

Rotomagensis 31, 11th century (probably a copy of the last, but with alterations and
abridgments);

Parisinus 5094, 11th century, with a text identical to the Alentianus ; and

Ottobonianus 2629, 15th century, which has the same text but with some
contamination from a different recension, and also has the Scholia on the LP of Peter,
bishop of Orvieto in the 14th century.

Parisinus 5145, 15th century, has a similar text, though now down to 104:24 only,
and the Scholia.

It seems that Adh£mar himself produced an abridgment of his own recension,
with a version of life 108 not found elsewhere (see pp. 293-4); it is represented by:

Parisinus 2400, 11th century, which goes down to life 107;

Parisinus 2268, 11 th century has the same text, as does

Parisinus 5517, end of 11th century.

The text from which Adhfrnar worked for these lives seems to have been a MS
similar to, but not identical with, D.

Around 1120, Lambert, canon of St Omer, produced his Liber Floridus (the
original MS survives, Gandavensis 92), but for these lives he based himself on the Annals
of St Bertin. At least 10 descendants of the surviving MS are known.

The English recension of the time of William of Malmesbury:

Cantabrigiensis 2021 (KK IV 6) has a version of the LP partly abridged and partly
with much interpolated material; for these lives it has a list of popes only.

Harleianus 633, 12th century, has a similar arrangement.

From the above listing one can quantify the decline in the number of available MSS
as the text proceeds. Excluding the later recensions there are, with all or most of each of
lives 100-101 and 103, 5 MSS; for 102, 105, 107-108, 4 MSS; and for 106 and 112
merely 3.

TEXTS AND COMMENTARIES

Le Liber Pontificalis, Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. L.
Duchesne, 2 volumes, 1886-1892; reissued by Cyrille Vogel, 1955-57,
with a third volume in part updating the commentary and with useful
bibliography and full indexes. The three volumes are cited as Duchesne,
I, II and III; the text of lives 100-112 is in Duchesne, II.

Monseigneur Duchesne et son temps , Actes du Colloque organise
par Decole frangaise de Rome (23-25 mai 1973), Collection de l’ecole
fran^aise de Rome 23 (Rome, 1975) has various articles including C.
Pietri, ‘Duchesne et la topographie romaine’, 23-48, and C. Vogel, ‘Le
Liber Pontificalis dans V edition de Louis Duchesne. Etat de la question’,
99-127.

Anastasii abbatis opera omnia : Patrologia Latina , volumes 127-8,
ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris, 1852. This reprints the Bianchini edition of 1718
with the pre-Duchesne text of the LP, but without commentaries for the
lives of this period.

Liber Pontificalis nella recensione di Pietro Guglielmo O.S.B. et del
card. Pandolfo, glossato da Pietro Bohler , ed. Ulderico Prerovsky, (3
vols., Studia Gratiana 21-23, Rome, 1978), contains the ‘Third edition’
of the LP, which heavily shortened the texts of these lives; PFerovsky
prints Duchesne’s text for comparison.

The Turin and other medieval catalogues of churches are in C.
Htilsen, Le Chiese di Roma (Florence, 1927), and R. Valentini & G.
Zucchetti, Codice topografico della citta di Roma , volume 3 (Rome,
1946).

For other primary sources see the lists in Nelson, AB, and Reuter,

AF.

XVI

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

ABBREVIATIONS

Most of these are standard; below are listed those which are
particularly frequent or may mystify.

AB Les Annales de Saint-Bertin, ed. F. Grat, J. Vieillard and S.
Cl&nencet (Paris, 1964); translation and commentary by Janet
Nelson, The Annals of St-Bertin , Ninth-century histories,
volume 1 (Manchester, 1991).

AF Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SSrG 1 (Hannover,
1891); translation and commentary by Timothy Reuter, The
Annals of Fulda , Ninth-century histories, volume 2
(Manchester, 1992).

ARF Annales Regni Francorum (741-829% ed. F. Kurze, MGH SSrG

6 (Hannover, 1895); translation by B. W. Scholz and B.
Rogers, in Carolingian Chronicles (Ann Arbor, 1970), 37-125.

BP The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontifical is), translated with an
introduction by Raymond Davis (Liverpool, 1989).

JP Jaff£, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad
a. 1198 , 2 a edit. cur. S. Loewenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P.
Wald, 2 vols. (Berlin 1885-88, reprint Graz, 1958).

LECP The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontifical is),
translated with an introduction and commentary by Raymond
Davis (Liverpool, 1992).

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historical

Cap Capitularia regum Francorum

Cone Concilia aevi karolini

DD C III Diplomata Caroli III

DD O 1 Diplomata Ottonis /

Ep Epistulae

EKA Epistulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi

SS Scriptores

SSrG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum

SSrL Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum

100. PASCHAL (817-824).

This life shows the signs, which began with life 99 and become the
norm for the next few lives, of slipshod composition, especially in
chronological data. The author provides a fairly basic account of
Paschal’s character and career to his ordination, mentions his concern
for captives, and then devotes the rest of the text, except for the
concluding formulae, to Paschal’s foundations, buildings, donations and
associated events. All this is written in a rather convoluted style which
can create obscurities, not clarified by a penchant for using plural
participles with a singular meaning or by a predilection for the verb
comere (and its adjective compte). It is true that Paschal’s works in
Rome were important. His buildings suggest a continuation of Leo Ilfs
attempts to renew the face of Rome according to early Christian models,
and the footnotes attempt to draw attention to the architectural features
at S. Prassede (cc. 8-10), S. Maria in Domnica (cc. 11-13) and S.
Cecilia in Trastevere (cc. 14-21). These churches were provided with
remarkable mosaics, many still surviving (including portraits of Paschal:
a photograph of that at S. Prassede is in NCE 11.1048). This provision
suggests Paschal’s reaction to the revival of iconoclasm by Leo V (813-
820); though our author shows no more awareness of this than he does
of the pope’s giving refuge to Greek monks fleeing persecution and of
his unsuccessful support of Theodore of Studios, the leading iconodule
of the time.

But the author’s blinkered approach to his task allows him to omit the
even more important events connected with the Carolingian empire. The
first of these is the agreement in 817 with Louis the Pious known as the
Pactum Ludovicianum (MGH Cap 1.352-5); this is dealt with in LECP
231-3, in view of the light it throws on the very similar but less well
recorded deal struck between Stephen IV and Louis in 816, which is
mentioned in the LP. Soon after his election the new pope sent an
embassy to Louis:

‘asking that the covenant made with his predecessors should also be solemnly
concluded with him. The nomenclator Theodore brought this message and was granted
his request’

(ARE 817 Scholz 102).

By this renewed pact Louis again confirmed the pope in his possession
of territories and of patrimonies further afield (listed in LECP 232),
committed himself to a policy of not interfering in the papal state unless
invited by the pope or anyone who was oppressed, and promised not to
intervene in papal elections, though a new pope, after his consecration,
was to notify the emperor and renew the pact. In giving these guarantees

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

to Stephen IV and now to Paschal, Louis went further than Charlemagne
had ever done. Harmony between church and empire generally ensued.
When Louis divided his empire in 817 he had Paschal confirm it.
Around 818 (J2550, MGH Ep 5.68 no. 10) Paschal wrote to Louis about
the reverence due to priests and reminded him about the vows he had
shortly before made, in front of relics, his clerics and the faithful, to
defend St Peter’s affairs in his own jurisdiction. In 821 Louis received
Paschal’s envoys, bishop Peter of Centumcellae and the nomenclator
Leo and soon dismissed them. Then Paschal sent his legates Theodore
the primicerius (father-in-law of the nomenclator Leo) and Florus the
superista , who in October 821 came to Thionville with rich gifts for the
marriage of Louis’s son king Lothar I to Irmengard (ARF 821 Scholz
108-9; Astronomer, Vita Hludovici Pii 34). When Louis chose Ebbo (on
whom see 104:16) to evangelize the Danes, he first sent him to Rome,
late in 822; Paschal commended him and Halitgar bishop of Cambrai,
and appointed the former as his legate in the north (J2553, MGH Ep
5.68-9 no. 11).

Meanwhile Paschal ruled the papal state without Frankish
interference. When Lothar was in Italy, dispensing justice on his father’s
instructions (this was not new: Lothar and some of his closest advisers
had been in Italy a number of times since 822), Paschal invited him to
Rome and on Easter Sunday, 5 April 823, gave him ‘the crown of the
kingdom and the title of Emperor and Augustus’, with a ceremony
(added to the ritual used for Charlemagne in 800) by which he presented
the new emperor with a sword to symbolize his duty to suppress evil.
From Rome Lothar returned in June to Pavia where Louis now was
(ARF 823; Scholz 112-3; Astronomer, 36). This coronation, which must
have been with Louis’s agreement, strengthened the idea that an
emperor owed his title to coronation by the pope (Stephen IV had
crowned Louis at Rheims in 816) but that the ceremony ought better to
occur, as in 800, at Rome.

But there was more than this to Lothar’s appearance in Rome. All
was not well, though certainty about what was wrong is unattainable:
the evidence is ‘scanty and enigmatic, but it points in a straight line to
turbulence and unsavory behavior’ (Noble, 309). It seems that Paschal’s
style of government had gained him enemies, especially among the
nobles; and given the strength of papal control, these enemies could turn
nowhere but to the Franks. In Rome, Lothar issued a judgment in favour
of the abbey of Farfa being exempt from papal taxes, a marker, perhaps,
both that Paschal could expect more imperial interference and that his
enemies could expect support from Lothar if they wanted it. The late
ninth-century Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma (ed.

100. PASCHAL 1

Zucchetti, FSI vol. 55, pp. 197-8) states that at this time all the ‘greater
men of the city had become adherents of the emperor’. No doubt the
pope still had his supporters (certainly those mentioned in the story
below who acted as envoys on his behalf, and the bishops, evidently
from a wide area, who joined him in his oath of purgation), but that he
had enemies and that they had grievances is clear from the remarks,
albeit inexplicit, of Paschasius Radbertus ( Vita Walae , 1.28). Next year
the Constitutio Romana {MGH Cap 1.323, no. 161, cc. 2, 6) would refer
to unjust seizures of land, depredations by papal officials, and church
possessions seized as if by papal permission. In 962 the Ottonianum
(MGH DD 01 326, no. 235) would refer to unpardonable deeds at this
time. Lothar’s coronation at Rome would have given Paschal’s
opponents time and opportunity to put forward their grievances; after
all, the Ludovicianum had allowed appeals to the emperor by those
oppressed within the papal state. It is regrettable that

‘only the dim outlines of the problems of these years can be perceived by historians
because papal biographers usually supplied few details, and Frankish writers were
generally in the dark because Carolingian inquests, of which there were many,
repeatedly crashed against walls of silence. Factional squabbles, probably having
something to do with land battles and court cases, seem to have been behind all these
difficulties. More cannot be said with confidence.’

(Noble, 312)

The climax soon came. In July 823 Louis heard that the already-
mentioned Theodore and Leo, the primicerius and the nomenclator , had
been blinded and decapitated in the Lateran,

‘and that this fate had befallen them because they had always acted loyally towards the
young emperor Lothar. There were also some who said that this had been done on
either the order or the advice of Pope Paschal’

(ARF 823 Scholz 113; cf. Astronomer, 37).
There seem to have been at least two other victims, Floro and Sergius
(mentioned in the Constitutio Romana ). Even if, as Paschal later
admitted, it was members of St Peter’s familia (the farmer soldiers of
the rural domuscultae) rather than the pope himself who instigated the
action, these Lateran officials must have been seen as more loyal to the
Franks than to Paschal. Perhaps the victims’ friends now appealed to
Louis at Aachen; but whether asked to intervene or not, Louis decided
to act:

‘Adalung, abbot of the monastery of St. Vaast, and Hunfrid, count of Chur, were
dispatched with orders to get to the bottom of this matter. But before they departed,
envoys of Pope Paschal arrived, Bishop John of Silva Candida and Benedict,
archdeacon of the Holy Apostolic See, pleading with the emperor to exonerate the pope
from the infamous rumor that he had consented to the murder of the men in question.
When the emperor had given a reasonable answer and dismissed them, he ordered his
envoys to go to Rome, as previously decided, and to find out the truth’

{ARF 823 Scholz 113; cf. Astronomer, 37).

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

But this commission was never able to carry out the investigation or put
anyone on trial. In the presence of the envoys at the Lateran that
autumn, copying the action of Leo III in 800, Paschal and many bishops
purged themselves on oath of any wrongdoing (cf. Adelson and Baker
1952:35-80). Paschal thus forestalled any attempt by Louis to interfere
in the papal state.

‘The envoys who went to Rome could not determine exactly what had happened. Pope
Paschal, with a large number of bishops (34 bishops, 5 priests and deacons, Thegan,
Gesta Hludowici imperatoris 30), purged himself by oath from any complicity in this
deed. On the other hand, he defended with great vigor the murders of the above-
mentioned men because they belonged to the familia of St Peter, condemned the dead
as guilty of 16se majesty and proclaimed that they had been justly slain’

(ARF 823 Scholz 113-4).

As Noble, 310, observes, if Romans who attacked the pope were
committing an offence amounting to treason, this speaks ‘eloquently for
the independence of the pope’s position within the empire’; but we are
not told that the imperial side would have accepted this argument, and
it is likely that Louis was becoming convinced that closer control over

Rome was necessary. Next Paschal

‘sent to the emperor Bishop John of Silva Candida and the librarian Sergius, as well
as the subdeacon Quirinus and the master of the horse Leo along with the afore¬
mentioned envoys who had been dispatched to him. When the emperor heard from
these men as well as from his own envoys of the pontiffs oath and the vindication of
the defendants, he believed that there was nothing else for him to do in this matter and
sent Bishop John and his companions back to the pope with a suitable answer’

(ARF 823 Scholz 113-4; cf. Astronomer, 37; Thegan, 30).

When these envoys returned to Rome, they

‘found the pope in bad health and already near death. In fact he died within a few days
after their arrival...’

(ARF 824 Scholz 115);

a disputed papal election ensued. Thus Paschal did not live to see the
closer control over Rome introduced by the Constitutio Romana , for
which see the introduction to the next life. Events of the kind here
ignored by the LP were nothing new (compare the happenings of 767-
772, 799, and 815), and would recur, whatever measures were taken by
the Carolingians to impose greater control.

100. PASCHAL I

100. 1. PASCHAL [I, 25 January 817 - 16 February 824 1 ], of Roman
origin, son of Bonosus, 2 held the see 7 years [0] months 17 days. From 3
his earliest youth he was bound over to the worship of God, and at the
holy church’s patriarchate 4 he was imbued with the study of God’s
saving Scripture; spiritually trained both in psalm-chanting and in the
sacred pages of the New and Old Testaments, elegant, and perfect in all
goodness, he was made subdeacon and afterwards honourably
consecrated priest. 5 He was holy, chaste, godly, innocent, outspoken,
devout, fully pure, and he was most cheerful and happy in opportunely
distributing all he had as alms to the poor. So he frequently applied
himself to talking of the things of God with religious and holy monks
as an unremitting duty by day and night, and he humbly and
becomingly throve on prayers, vigils and daily fasting.

2. When his predecessor the thrice-blessed lord pope Leo noticed he
was so untiring in all this endeavour, and was devout and religious, he
entrusted him with the rule of St Stephen the first martyr’s monastery,
called Major, 6 close to the basilica of St Peter prince of the apostles, for

1 For Paschal’s death on 16 February 824 (with Eugene IPs ordination on Sunday 21
February) see 101:1 n. 1. For Paschal’s tenure, the variants in the LP MSS are (C) 6 years
17 days, (E) 7 years 5 months 16 days; the Montecassino Catalogue has 7 years 16 days.
Read 7 years 22 days (xxii for xvii); or accept 7 years 16 days, from Sunday 1 February
817, but the vacancy from 24/25 January in 817 is given as ‘2 days’ (99:5).

2 Paschal’s mother was Theodora episcopa, cf. n. 29.

5 The eulogy that follows (cc. 1-3) is based on 98:1-2 (and its sources, 91:!, 93:1).

4 Paschal was educated in the Lateran, like popes Gregory II and Leo HI (91:1, 98:1).

5 Very probably, though not certainly, by Leo III. How Paschal was employed before he
was made abbot we are not told; perhaps he did spend many years in the papal
administration (Kelly, 99; Sullivan, NCE 11.1048), but the LP does not say so.

6 St Stephen Major’s is identical with St Stephen’s cata Galla patricia (cf. 97:53 with
n. 90); this follows from a document of 1073-4, the sale of landholdings by Benedict
‘archpriest of the venerable monastery St Stephen Major called cata Galla...’ (Schiaparelli
1901:490f, no. 26). Paschal was clearly not the first abbot, the ‘suitable person’ appointed
when Hadrian I reformed the congregation here about 775 (97:53); perhaps his
appointment was made when Leo III (in 809-10, 98:90) rebuilt the monastery; as pope.
Paschal presented gifts (c. 27). The monasteo' had an oratory, but it is unclear when the
surviving basilica (S. Stefano degli Abessini) was built. Its plan is closest to that of S.
Prassede (Krautheimer, Corpus 4.180-198): 81 Roman feet long, 27 feet wide, with
trabeated colonnades each with 8 columns, 2 aisles each 17 feet wide, a continuous
transept 22 feet deep and 61/2 to 63 feet long, an apse, an annular crypt, overall 130 feet
long and 70 feet wide. The lintel of one of the lamp niches in the crypt has an inscription
of Leo IV. Because of this the crypt used to be considered later than the church built by
Leo III. But crypt and church are of one build, and Krautheimer suggests that all is Leo
IV, though LP 105 is silent. That life has other gaps in its account of building works; and
Leo IV was involved enough with St Stephen Major to transfer to it jurisdiction over S.
Pellegrino (n. 53 below). Yet the likeness to S. Prassede might better imply that it is all
Leo Ill’s work, just a few years before S. Prassede was built, and ‘included’ (so to speak)

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

it is written: 'No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under
a bushel, but on a stand, that those who enter may see the light’. 7 So it
was that he who amended this temporal life for himself with a view to
everlasting gain, soberly and usefully guiding it, zealously set forth for
his subjects a fine example of living well and a way of enhancing their
piety. 8 He also provided the bounty of hospitality for the pilgrims and
disabled who for the love of St Peter the apostle flocked from distant
regions to his door, preparing what was necessary for their needs. This
he had done quietly, and disbursed it cheerfully. Every day he continued
to grow in the work he did for God until his predecessor lord pope
Stephen departed this life to eternal bliss. 3. So when fame spread
particularly far and wide so many instances of his good activity, and
almighty God, consenting to the rule of his church being under the care
of godly government, fitly and moderately arranged it, then with one
heart and mind and with the intervention of God’s will he was raised up
to the apostolic see as pontiff by all the sacerdotes and dignitaries and
all the clergy, also the leaders and whole Roman people, to the praise
and glory of almighty God. 9

He was 10 a most seemly observer of the precepts of the Fathers, the
teachings of the pontiffs, the rules of the canons and the enactments of
the laws, and from the time of his ordination he was a noble
promulgator of the rule of justice for all; slow to anger and quick to
have pity, repaying no one evil for evil, nor taking vengeance according
to what each one committed, but ever compassionate, he loved and
governed with dutiful love all the citizens and the Roman people whom
God entrusted to him. He was a devotee, a restorer and in every way a
most devout adomer of all God’s churches with great endeavour and
wisdom for the customary concern of religion.

by the LP in its reference to Leo Ill’s rebuilding of the monastery; Leo IV’s inscription
need not be original.

7 Luke 11.33.

8 Krautheimer, Corpus 4.180, citing Ferrari, 320 f, plausibly interprets the convoluted
Latin to mean that as abbot Paschal reformed the congregation and (next sentence)
directed its attention to caring for pilgrims and the lame who come to St Peter’s.

9 ARF 817 Scholz 102: ‘Meanwhile, Pope Stephen died on ( circiter ) January 25, not three
months after his return to Rome. Paschal was elected as his successor. As soon as he had
been solemnly consecrated, he sent gifts and an apologetic letter to the emperor (Louis the
Pious, 814-840). In the letter he claimed that the papal dignity had been forced on him
not only against his will but even against his most violent resistance’. The speed with
which Paschal’s ordination was carried out, only 2 days (99:5) after Stephen IV’s death,
may reflect a concern to forestall any interference from Louis, now protector of the
Roman church; but Paschal was careful to announce his election to Louis immediately and
to stress his unwillingness (Kelly, 99).

10 For the continuing eulogy, cf. 91:1 and 98:2.

100. PASCHAL I

4. This blessed prelate sought out and found many bodies of the
saints, whom he carefully and becomingly buried inside the city to
God’s honour and glory. For his clergy he increased the stipend for
priestly functions 11 many times over. And because he laid up all his
treasure 12 in the heavenly temple, <he was concemed> most of all for
prisoners and exiles, and not only those from overseas regions; he
ransomed men and women with gold and silver, and he even searched
step by step along the farflung routes of roads, found them whether in
the parts of Spain or in any other place, and as a good and true
shepherd brought them back home.

[A.D. 817 , January - August:]

5. On the holy altar of St Peter prince of the apostles he provided a
cloth decorated with wondrous beauty, made of gold and jewels,
representing this apostle’s release from chains by the angel. 13 In his
venerable basilica in front of the entrance leading to his body, at the
place Ferrata , he set up an altar 14 and in it he also becomingly placed
St Xystus the martyr and pontiffs body for veneration, and above it he
suitably furnished an arch decorated with mosaic.

Also in St Peter’s holy church, close to the entrance leading to St
Petronilla’s, he splendidly constructed an oratory 15 of enormous size,
and he decorated the vaulting over the columns in the square with
mosaic and beautiful minerals. In it he buried memorably and
honourably the bodies of the martyrs SS Processus and Martinian to
almighty God’s honour and glory. In its apse he arranged and inserted
among the marble constructions a very beautiful silver-gilt image with
various representations, weighing 6214 lb; also silver lilies weighing 17
lb 3 oz, and 7 fine gold bowls, weighing in all 13 lb 2 oz. 6. He
provided 3 silver-gilt images in the same venerable place, one of the

11 So the whole phrase ( roga ... in presbiterio ) at 98:2; where (n. 6) it is pointed out that
by now the expression may refer to gratuities paid on important feastdays.

12 Cf. Matt. 19.21, Mark 10.21, Luke 18.22; and Matt. 6.19.

13 Acts 12.7. Paschal’s first recorded gift as pope is of a cloth of identical design to the
first gift made by Hadrian 1,97:45. The symbolism could suit different political situations.
On textiles in general see Lopez 1945, Forbes 1964, Volbach 1969, Reinhold 1970,
Muthesius 1984, Oikonomides 1986.

14 This oratory was just in front (to the east) of the southern part of the entrance screen
to the confessio; it was dedicated jointly to SS Xystus II and Fabian (c. 24; and so called
in the epitaph of Sergius II, buried in it in 847, see 104:48 with n. 94). In the 12th
century Mallius referred to Paschal’s ‘arch with mosaic’ as still surviving.

15 In the SE comer of the transept (St Petronilla’s opened from the southern end of the
transept). Mallius added to the LP account that Paschal put the bodies ‘in a porphyry
shell, as it appears, and to revere them he surrounded the place with bronze railings; down
to our own time it was still considered so holy that women were not allowed in’.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ, the other two of the martyrs SS
Processus and Martinian, weighing in all 36 lb; he also presented
another image of fine gold to adorn this oratory, weighing 13 lbs 3 oz.
Likewise 8 canisters of fine silver, weighing 43 lb; he also set up there
a silver shell for sponges for the night-time diligentiae , 16 weighing 7 lb
9 oz. He also rightly decorated in the same venerable place fine gold
bejewelled keys in the shape of a cross, weighing .. Ib. There too he
arranged a cornice, which he overlaid with silver sheets weighing 20 Ib;
and above it he set up 2 silver arches and 4 chevrons weighing in all 60
lb. For decoration he surrounded the altar’s propitiatorium with silver
sheets, and he nobly furnished round his holy confessio inside and
outside, with its grills, weighing in all.. lb. On these holy martyrs’ altar
he furnished 2 cloths, one of which he wondrously adorned with a gold-
studded go Id-interwoven cross, the other with fourfold-woven silk; he
also adorned 7 great gold-interwoven veils, sewn around with a purple
fringe.

7. We think this too should not be passed over in silence, that at that
time, with devilish cunning at work, through the carelessness of some
men of English race their whole quarter, 17 called burgus in their
language, was so burnt with an abounding flame of fire, that not even
traces of their former dwelling could be found in that place. By its
exuberance this fire devastated as kindling almost all the portico which
leads to the prince of the apostles’ basilica. When the thrice-blessed
pontiff realized this at about the twilight hour of the night, for love of
St Peter the apostle’s church and because of those pilgrims’ great
devastation, he immediately hastened there on horseback without putting
his shoes on. So great was almighty God’s mercy at his arrival, that at
the place in which this angelic pontiff first stood he allowed the force

16 This is the technical name for a ceremony, as is clear from Ordo Romanus 44
(Andrieu, 4.417 fif), a document written 824-7 by a copyist at Ratisbon who had a Roman
source but interpolated some Frankish terms. The inscriptional record of Gregory Ill’s
synod at St Peter’s (92:6 with n. 23) has diligentiam facere\ the Life of St Amand refers
to it as a nightfall ceremony at St Peter’s at or before the middle of the 7th century
(though the life was written rather later). The primicerius used a sponge to wash the inside
and outside of the confessio after the removal of the censer from the vertical shaft which
led down into the tomb (Andrieu, 4.423); Leo III had provided two of these apostolic
thuribles for St Peter’s, 98:67-68 with n. 121, and two for St Paul’s, 98:68; Leo IV would
provide one for SS Quattuor Coronati, 105:45. A similar ceremony seems to have taken
place at Montecassino at the tomb of St Benedict (Andrieu, 4.426). It is not clear how
often the ceremony was performed; at St Peter’s by the 12th century the censer was
renewed once a year only and the washing was no longer performed (Andrieu, 4.425). The
notion of Barbier Montault (cited by Andrieu) that the concha (‘shell’) was a chamber-pot
may be disregarded.

17 The English borgo, quarter of the Schola Saxonum; for its site cf. 98:19 with n. 49.

100. PASCHAL I

of the fire to cross over no further. But he besought God’s clemency,
and the crowd of the faithful who were there fought the flames, and the
fire was by God’s mercy extinguished. So it happened that for the space
of the whole night until dawn he stood in the same place on watch. So
afterwards the thrice-blessed pastor, noticing the need of those pilgrims,
which had crept in through the plotting of the devil’s trickery, bestowed
so many gifts and benefits for their needs, as he was ever accustomed
to do; he supplied everything abundantly, gold and silver, clothing for
their bodies as well as the rest of the nourishment needed. Also a
quantity of trees to provide timber, so that they could restore their
homes as required in the same place as they had been before. As for the
portico which had been wrecked by the same disaster, he fittingly and
solidly restored it better than it had been.

[A.D. 817-818:]

8. In the church of St Peter the prince of the apostles his mentor, this
distinguished pontiff provided 46 gold-studded veils for the arches of
the presbyterium , representing the miracles of the apostles, which the
Lord saw fit to work through them.

The church of Christ’s martyr St Praxedes, 18 built a long time ago,
was now suffering such fatigue 19 from its great age that collapse to its
foundations was threatening its ruin; this venerable pontiff anticipating
its ruin and applying care to that church, often being on the watch there,
shifted and erected it in another place not far away, an improvement on
what it had formerly been. 20 He fittingly decorated this church’s apse

18 Compare the language at I04:27ff, for which this passage is the source.

19 Although S. Prassede had been restored in integro less than 40 years previously
(97:78), it was now abandoned and replaced on a new site. Krautheimer, Corpus 3.258,
comments that the titulus had existed since at least 491; even before Paschal moved it it
was called ecclesia (so in the list of 807, though titulus earlier in life 98), but that might
mean no more than a large room inside a titulus. There is no certain archaeological
evidence for the earlier site. One suggestion is that the left-hand side of the present atrium
is the remnant of the nave arcade of the earlier church with reversed orientation, and
presumably of fourth- or fifth-century date; the fragment of a half-dome whose original
span was some 12 m, found near the SW comer of this atrium, suggests a sizeable
building with this vault rising somewhere near the present atrium, but the fragment may
have come from another building, below the atrium. Perhaps the most likely suggestion
is that the site of the titulus (with, then, no purpose-built church) was the insula which has
partly survived in the houses along the Via di San Martino and higher up below the
atrium and fasade of Paschal’s church, some 8 m above the ancient street level; this would
be ‘not far from’ the new site.

20 The 9th-century building largely survives, with a few later alterations. Krautheimer,
Corpus 3.239-259 passim, comments on its fine state of preservation as a perfect example
of the Carolingian revival at Rome, showing the continuation of the movement which
began under Hadrian I and Leo Ill, ‘striving towards a renascence of Early Christian types
and ideas in politics, liturgy and architecture’. With S. Stefano degli Abessini, it is the

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

adorned with mosaic work in different colours. 21 Likewise he
embellished the triumphal arch 22 with the same minerals, carrying it out
in a marvellous fashion.

[A.D. 818-819:]

9. This holy and distinguished pontiff sought out, found and collected
many bodies of saints 23 lying in destroyed cemeteries, with dutiful

only example in Rome of a type common north of the Alps, based on the design of St
Peter’s, though much smaller in size and with two aisles not four. S. Prassede has a nave
36 m long and 14 m wide with aisles 5 l A m wide, 11 columns 5 m high on each side
(only 16 are now visible). The present Romanesque porch at street level may include
elements of a 9th-century porch; from it a flight of steps leads to an open atrium, on the
west side of which are two of the original atrium columns in situ, on a stylobate of
‘Servian’ blocks, and whose arches are surmounted by Carolingian brickwork. On the
north of the atrium is the facade of the basilica, this facade also resting on ‘Servian’
blocks. The exterior walls of the basilica are Carolingian and the apse brickwork has the
usual Carolingian modules. In at least one window 9th-century gypsum gratings have
survived. Restorations in 1914 uncovered some plutei from the 9th-century chancel screen,
now placed in the transept wing.

21 S. Prassede has the most important group of 9th-century mosaics in Rome (Oakeshott
1967:204-12; cf. Krautheimer, Corpus 3.250). The inner wall of the apse was sheathed
with marble plaques, removed in 1730. The apse-vault (Oakeshott 207 and pi. 127) still
has Christ standing on the River Jordan, flanked on the right by SS Peter, Pudentiana and
Zeno, on the left by SS Paul and Praxedes with Paschal himself wearing a square halo
(his portrait thus survives; and his monogram is on the intrados of the apse-arch, ibid, and
fig. 6); the draperies have areas of coloured decoration; a palm-tree flanks the figures on
both sides, that on the left with a phoenix in its foliage. Below is the Lamb of God on a
green platform from which the four rivers of Paradise flow, flanked by 12 lambs on a
gold background. Below, the inscription (ed. DUmmler, MGH Poet. Lat. Aevi Kar. 2.662
no. 1) alludes to the ‘bodies’, with which Paschal enriched the church. The mosaic is a
copy of that at SS Cosma e Damiano (dated 526-30; Oakeshott, 90-94, Duchesne 1.280):
Praxedes and Pudentiana replace Cosmas and Damian, Paschal and Zeno replace Felix IV
and St Theodore; Duchesne thought it a slavish copy in a style of more advanced
barbarism. Tastes have changed.

22 The triumphal arch has the original mosaic (Mauck, 1987; Oakeshott, 206-7, plate 121)
showing apostles and martyrs in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21) with golden
walls. In the centre stands Christ, in a red and gold robe, and on each side is an angel
with a green halo; in the city are the 12 apostles, with John the Baptist and the Virgin to
the left, Praxedes to the right; on either side of the city are white-robed martyrs
approaching, bearing palm-branches, the group on the left, which includes women,
marshalled by 3 lay figures in green, red and blue, that on the right by 1 lay and 2 clerical
figures in green, red and gold; those on the right are met at the city-gate by St Peter and
an archangel. Below the martyrs are confessors, also with palm-branches, but suffering
slightly from the destruction of most of the lower part of the springings of the arch in
16th-century alterations. Jerusalem and the martyrs are a further allusion to the relics
Paschal placed in the church. The mosaic decoration of the triumphal arch is continued
on the transept-wall by a large mosaic outlining the opening of the apse, showing the 24
Elders (some heavily restored) and the Lamb (Rev. 4); the north transept has fresco
decoration (well preserved inside the campanile) in a style regarded as somewhat old-
fashioned for the 9th century.

23 A marble inscription against the first column on the right (full text in Duchesne II 64)
catalogues the relics. The present plaque was apparently prepared by Cardinal Ludovico
Pico della Mirandola during restorations in 1730, but it was intended as a more legible

100. PASCHAL I

concern that they should not remain neglected; 24 with great affection and
veneration he removed and buried them in the church of Christ’s said
martyr St Praxedes, which he had wonderfully renewed and constructed,
with the assistance of all the Romans, bishops, priests, deacons and
clerics chanting psalms of praise to God. And while these inner cares of
the holy and angelic prelate’s heart were afoot, in his anxiety to gain
aid 25 before the Lord almighty by the prayers of those whose holy
bodies are buried therein, who beyond the stars 26 are unceasingly
pleasing to God, he constructed in that place from its foundations a
monastery, 27 which he dedicated in the name of the virgin St Praxedes;
in 28 this too he gathered a holy community of Greeks, which he placed
therein to carry out carefully by day and night praises to almighty God
and his saints resting therein, chanting the psalms in the Greek manner.
10. On that venerable monastery he conferred many estates and landed
properties in the city and the country, and he enriched it profusely and
abundantly.

version of a 13th-century original, though how reliably this was copied cannot be known
(Krautheimer, Corpus 3.235-6, citing Grisar 1899:plate V, 2). This inscription was much
later than Paschal’s time, but may have been based on a 9th-century document. It records
that on 20 July of the 10th indiction (817; incorrect on Geertman’s chronology here
followed) Paschal placed under the altar of S. Prassede: (1) pontiffs. Urban, Stephen,
Antheros, Miltiades, Fabian, Julius, Pontian, Siricius, Lucius, Xystus, Felix, Anastasius
and Caelestinus; (2) bishops, Stratonicus, Leucius and Optatus; (3) priests and deacons,
Nicomedes the archpriest, Justus and Cyrinus, Cyriac the deacon, Nemesius and Iacheus;
(4) martyrs, Zoticus, Hereneus, lacinthus, Amantius, Marius, Audifax, Abbacuc; 800
others; Castulus, Felix, Miles, Gordian, Epimachus, Servilian, Sulpicius, Diogenes, Bastus;
62 others; Marcellian, Mark, Festus; 2 others; Tertullinus, Faustus, Bonosus, Maurus,
Calumniosus, John, Exsuperantius, Castus, Cyril; the 7 brothers; Honoratus, Theodosius,
Basilius, Crescentius, Largus, Smaragdus, Crescendo, Jason, Maurus, Hippolytus, Pontian,
Chrysanthus; 66 others; 1024 others; Maurus, Arthemius, Polio; 62 others; (5) virgins and
widows, Praxedes, Pudentiana, Juliana, Symphorosa, Felicula, Marina, Candida, Paulina,
Daria, Basilla, Paulina, Memmia, Martha, Emerentiana, Zoe, Tiburtias. On the right of the
basilica’s entrance where the body of his mother the episcopa Theodora lay, he placed:
(6) the priest Zeno and 2 others. In the oratory of St John the Baptist on the left of the
basilica, which is the secretarium : (7) Maurus; 40 martyrs. In the oratory of St Agnes in
the monastery above: (8) the martyrs, pope Alexander, priests Eventius and Theodulus.
Stated total, 2300; the items (excluding Theodora) add to 2151 (86 are named).

24 Cf. 95;4, pope Paul’s removal of relics from the cemeteries to within the city.

25 iuvarentur; but iuvaretur in the parallel passage (104:29) is grammatically better.

26 The expression super astra placentium is suggested by the second line of the
inscription on the apse mosaic {super aethra placentis).

27 Paschal seems to have incorporated in his new monastery of St Praxedes the oratory
of the monastery of St Agnes ad Dua Furna , and the two institutions were henceforth
regarded as a single monastery, Ferrari, 4-5. It was to this monastery, rather than to the
church, that later gifts of textiles were made (103:29, 105:15). On the older monastery see
98:78 n. 150 (with the further suggestion that the monastery of SS Hadrian and Laurence
was also united with it).

28 The rest of this c. and the 1st sentence of the next are modelled very closely on 95:5.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Also in that church he built an oratory of Christ’s martyr St Zeno,
and there he also placed his holy body, and fully adorned it with
mosaic. 29 In the same church he provided a silver canopy weighing 910
lb; 30 he also wondrously adorned the holy altar’s propitiatorium with
silver sheets. He beautifully embellished and gilded her 31 confessio, with
its grills, 32 walling it inside and outside, weighing in all 300 lb. Over
her venerable altar he provided a spanoclist diadem adorned with deep
yellow gold and various stones, weighing 5 lb 214 oz. On that holy altar
he provided a gold-studded cloth, adorned with various representations,
of wondrous size and beauty. There too he provided another gold-
studded cloth made of gold and jewels, representing the virgins with
their lamps alight, wondrously embellished and decorated. And at that
virgin’s holy body 33 he presented an image with silver sheets in relief, 34

29 Paschal’s mother Theodora had her tomb in this oratory (see the relic catalogue, lines
36-42, cf. n. 23). Despite alterations made (according to Duchesne) in 1223 when the
Column of the Scourging was placed here, the oratory still survives with its 9th-century
mosaics (these have been partly retouched; on them see Oakeshott, pp. 207-12 with plates
XIX, XXI-XXII, 125-7; Mackie, 1989; Wisskirchen, 1991). Krautheimer (( Corpus , 3.252-
5, 259) remarks that the sculptural decoration illustrates the character of 9th-century art
in the use both of spoils and of original ornament. The oratory is based closely on the
architecture of two Roman mausolea, one pagan (the tomb of the Cercenii), the other
presumably Christian (the so-called chapel of St Tiburtius adjoining SS Marcellino e
Pietro). It opens off the right aisle in line with the centre of the 8th intercolumniation in
the nave arcade. The entrance doorway is flanked by a pair of Ionic columns with black
granite shafts, supporting a sculptured cornice with an inscribed couplet naming Paschal
(ed. DOmmler, MGH Poet. Lat. aevi Kar. 2.662 no. 2), followed by his monogram. The
wall above the door (Oakeshott, 207 and plate 125) has, outside, mosaic medallions of
Christ, the Apostles, the Virgin and saints. The chapel is a square cross-vaulted chamber,
3.5 x 3.6 m, with barrel-vaulted rectangular exedrae opening on three sides. All the vaults
are covered with mosaics. The exedra opposite the door is 2.5 x 1.5 m, and has an altar
(the mosaic altar-piece is probably I Ith-century, Oakeshott, 207-8 and plate 126). The two
side exedrae are 1.7 x 1.3 m. The walls are covered with marble; the floor has an opus
sectile pavement, with a large round porphyry plaque in the centre. Mosaics on a gold
ground cover the vaulted zone of the chapel; four angels support a bust of Christ on the
groin vault (Oakeshott, plates XXI-XXII and 127; cf. p. 210 and plate 128 for its
relationship with the 6th-century vault-mosaic in the Archbishops’ Chapel at Ravenna);
figures of saints (Oakeshott, plate XIX) occupy the lunettes, and smaller groups fill the
exedrae lunettes, including Theodora in the left niche, opposite St Zeno’s tomb; her
portrait is adorned with a square halo, and at the side the words THEOROR(a)
EPISCOPA.

30 Now against the side walls of the chancel are six decorative Roman columns; probably
they were used by Paschal in the 9th century, four of them perhaps to bear the canopy
(Krautheimer, Corpus 3.257, who at n. 5 states that four arches of the canopy, 1.13 x 2.13
m, survive in the right-hand transept).

31 Or ‘its’ (the altar’s), and similarly below (the text is dealing with the main part of S.
Prassede, not the chapel of St Zeno).

32 Probably double doors are meant (so Krautheimer, Corpus 3.234).

33 In the ctypt under the high altar.

34 praefiguratis seems to mean ‘in relief; Krautheimer, loc. cit., paraphrases ‘a silver-

100. PASCHAL I

weighing 99 lb.

11 . This kind prelate provided in the same monastery an oratory of
Christ’s martyr St Agnes, 35 decorated with wondrous beauty.

As for the church of God’s holy mother our lady the ever-virgin
Mary, called Domnica, 36 built of old and now close to ruin, this pontiff
with skilful vigilance renewed it building it from the foundations bigger
and better than it had been before. He wondrously decorated this
church’s apse with mosaic. 37 There too he presented many gifts 38 - a

plated statue or relief.

35 This oratory is mentioned in the relic catalogue (cf. n. 23) at line 48 as sursum , in the
upper part of the monastery. On Agnes’s cult here see Duchesne 1907:485.

36 S. Maria in Domnica is not mentioned before Leo Ill’s time (LP 98:29 with n. 75, and
the Einsiedeln Itinerary), but it must have existed, and as a deaconry, since the start of
Hadrian Vs pontificate. Paschal entirely rebuilt the church after the threat of imminent
collapse of an older building; but (Krautheimer, Corpus 2.308-321) this does not mean
that die older building had been a church in origin. The original deaconry had probably
been installed in the precinct-barracks of the Statio Cohortis V Vigilum, located south and
west (in the gardens of the Villa Mattei) of the 9th-century church, and the remains under
the present church were probably part of it (the ruins of the Castra Peregrinorum below
and beside the nearby S. Stefano Rotondo are not related). When it was made a deaconry
an oratory will have been provided, but no traces have been found. The core of Paschal’s
church is well preserved: the fa 9 ade, aisle-walls, nave-walls and the three apses are all
homogeneous, but the portico dates to 1513-14. There are 9 columns each side of the
nave; one of the capitals is 9th-century, the others earlier spoils. The nave, aisles, arcade,
clerestory and three apses are all 9th-century; the central apse’s wall rests on ‘Servian’
blocks. The original fa 9 ade is not known, nor whether there was an original portico; the
one replaced in the 16th century need not have been 9th-century. Krautheimer remarks
that the church is characteristic of the Carolingian revival of Early Christian church
planning in Rome, except for the side apses, whose function is obscure (perhaps for
offertory rites: no minor altars seem to have existed). Triple apses are of eastern origin,
common there from the end of the 5th century, and reached Europe via the Adriatic ports
(Salona, Parenzo, S. Apollinare in Classe) in the sixth century; the idea came to Rome at
about the same time (S. Giovanni in Porta Latina), but they were not common till
generally adopted in North Italy in the 8th and 9th centuries. At Rome they are found at
S. Angelo in Pescheria in 755, S. Maria in Cosmedin 772-95. Direct Greek influence at
this date need not be invoked. It seems to follow that the triapsidal church of S. Maria
delle Grazie at Santa Maria Capua Vetere cannot be Constantinian (LP 34:31, BP 25 with
p. xxvi), pace M. Pagano & J. Rougetet (cited at BP xlvii).

37 This mosaic survives (as does that on the triumphal arch, not mentioned in the LP; on
both see Oakeshott, 203-4 and plates XX, 114-120). With a design unique in Rome, and
a technique like that on the surviving copy of the Triclinium of Leo III, the apse has the
Virgin (with the Child on her knee) in a deep-blue robe, seated on a red cushion on a
golden throne with a golden carpet in front. Her right hand is extended towards Paschal
(square halo, yellow vestment, and pallium), who kneels at her feet, touching her shoe;
to either side are angels. Paschal’s monogram is on the apse-arch, and along the foot of
the mosaic the inscription records his splendid decoration in the Virgin’s honour of a
once-ruinous church; Krautheimer, Corpus 2.316 and fig. 241.

38 Paschal’s gifts in cc. 11-14 allowed Krautheimer, Corpus 2.319, to reconstruct the
chancel layout: an altar with silver canopy, closed off by four curtains, the altar with a
propitiatorium of silver plaques. The small window into the confessio was protected by
2 small grills, one outside, one inside, and framed, it seems, by a silver arch resting on

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

silver canopy weighing 332 lb; he embellished and decorated the holy
altar’s propitiator ium with silver sheets. He also completed and adorned
in wondrous manner its confessio, with the grills, inside and outside,
weighing 115 lb 3 oz. There too he provided a fine gold bowl, weighing

2 lb 8 oz. Also a silver arch and 2 colonnettes with 2 chevrons,
weighing .. lb. 12 . And on the holy altar he provided a gold-studded
cloth, representing the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, adorned with
wondrous beauty. There too he provided a beautiful cross-adorned silk
cloth with a purple fringe; and another cloth of byzantine purple, with
a gold-studded panel with the face of God’s holy mother and angels
standing as her retinue, with a fringe of cross-adorned silk; also another
cloth of cross-adorned silk, with peacocks and in the centre a purple
cross. Also 2 fourfold-woven cloths with purple crosses in the centre.
There too he provided a gold-woven cloth with a purple fringe; 1 red
silk altarcloth. 13 . Round the altar he provided 4 red silk veils with
chevrons and a cross of fourfold weave. This venerable prelate provided
on the beam in front of the vestibule of the altar 3 tyrian veils and 5
interwoven with gold; on the great arches of that church 39 he provided
20 veils of fourfold weave, and for the arches of the presbyterium 4
small cross-adorned silk veils; also, at the entrance to the presbyterium

3 tyrian veils. 14 . This kind pontiff provided at that church’s entrance
a great curtain of fourfold weave with a fringe interwoven with gold.
[A.D. 819-820: St Caecilia]

Now this same pontiff, Lord Christ almighty’s servant, had
unceasingly and with foresight the greatest care and solicitude for God’s
churches. And one day when, in his endeavour to pray, he came to the
church 40 of God’s virgin Christ’s martyr St Caecilia, he saw that this

2 colonnettes. In front of the (vestibule of the) altar a rood beam extended across the
opening of the apse; the 2 sets of curtains for this (3 and 5) perhaps suggest that 4
columns supported the rood. In front of the apse a chancel seems to have projected into
the eastern bays of the nave. The 4 small curtains for the arches of the presbyterium
presumably closed 2 arches in each side of the chancel. At the entrance to the
presbyterium 3 purple curtains were hung, possibly placed inside 3 arches.

59 For the nave arcade ( arcus maiores). There are 22 arches in the nave; but Duchesne
and Krautheimer agree that 20 were to be adorned, excluding the last on each side. The
column each side nearest the altar is of porphyry, while all the others are granite; the last
arch each side was evidently reckoned as part of the presbyterium.

40 The church of S. Cecilia is first referred to in the LP at 61:4 (BP 57), in the year 545,
but is certainly at least of fourth-century date. In ail that follows it should be remembered
that whatever Paschal found, it was not the body of a Roman martyr named Caecilia.
There is no early evidence for a martyr so named; Caecilia will have been the foundress
of the titulus. It is possible that she was later identified with a martyr from somewhere
else, as happened to the foundress of the titulus Anastasiae , for whom a homonymous
martyr was found by coopting Anastasia of Sirmium.

100. PASCHAL I

church’s walls were now shaken with extreme old age and about to fall
to the foundations; they had been weakened for a long time by the
infirmity of age; almost broken in ruins, they had long remained
damaged. Putting endeavour into the work, he began to construct a new
church at that place with magnificent workmanship, and he endeavoured
to complete it satisfactorily, an improvement on how it had been. 41

15. There is another thing which we think should not be omitted. 42
One day when he had made his way to St Peter the prince of the
apostles’ church to celebrate the customary vigils before St Peter and to
stay and sing morning praises in front of his confessio as Sunday
dawned, he sank into a sudden sleep and saw standing beside him a girl
who had the appearance of a virgin and was adorned with the clothing
of an angel. She uttered these words: 43 ‘We thank you greatly for

41 The church still survives, disfigured by later restorations. It is unclear whether what
Paschal replaced was a true basilica or merely the original titulus made up of various
buildings from the 1st through to the 4th or 6th centuries. The new church (Krautheimer,
Corpus 1.104-112 passim) is of normal type for the 9th century: a nave 150 Roman feet
long (or excluding the apse 133Ya feet), its width increasing from 46Va to 48V3 feet
(excluding the column widths), its height 44 feet; two aisles 25 feet high, of which the left
increases from \3 l A to 13% feet (excluding the column widths), while the right decreases
from 15Ya to 12% feet. The irregularities may be due to the use of older walls as
foundations. The nave has 13 arcades; only two columns now survive, at a distance apart
of 9 feet, the height being 14% feet (including Ionic base and Corinthian capital); the
arches are about 20 feet high from the original floor (some 8 inches below the present).
For the apse interior see c. 19 and n. 56. The exterior of the apse has undulating
brickwork, visible too on the outside of the right aisle and in the walls of the nave. Above
each arch is a window 4 feet 2 inches wide and 10 feet high, with 4 feet 10 inches
between each. The original facade had three windows; there is no trace of windows in the
aisles. Originally it seems that there were no galleries; the present one is 13th-century.
Above the so-called Bath of S. Cecilia is a chapel which may be original; if so it parallels
that of St Zeno at S. Prassede. The present atrium, a four-sided portico of columns and
arches, may be on 9th-century foundations; the width of the porticoes is 12Va feet, much
like that of the aisles. All is uniform construction of Paschal’s time, and is very typical
of Roman 9th-century architecture, cf. S. Marco, S. Anastasia’s 3rd phase, S. Prassede,
S. Stefano degli Abessini, and S. Martino. All are simple basilicas with a nave, two aisles
separated by columns, and an atrium. Not all have a transept, but most have an annular
crypt. All are lit by windows above the nave while the aisles are unlit; 9th-century
windows are larger than those of the 8th century and have double arches. The columns,
whether for an arcade or for an architrave, are close (9-11 feet). The brickwork is regular
but undulating. AH is closer to Early Christian than to 6th/8th-century work.

42 There exists a fragment of a letter purportedly written by Paschal on the discovery of
St Caecilia’s body. It exists in two versions, one published by Bosio (Duchesne cites his
Historia passionis S. Caeciliae, Rome 1600, 42) from three MSS which differed between
themselves in some respects, and one by Baronius (821 §4-6, in ed. Venice 1711 vol. 9
p. 598; J2555 Cum summae , Mansi 14.373-4, PL 102.1085-8). Baronius took the letter
as genuine and as the biographer’s source; Duchesne saw that it was a forgery based on
the LP, and that of the two versions one derives from the other, the older being much
closer to the LP.

43 The precise meaning of her words is obscure. From what follows it seems that Paschal
had been inquiring (pointlessly) where the Lombards were supposed to have taken her

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

abandoning the struggle you had long undertaken on my part when you
lent your ears to the deceptive reports that were spread. It is because
you have been so much in my service that we are able to speak to each
other with our own voices.’ The pontiff was now listening carefully, and
began eagerly to inquire who she was who spoke such words to him,
and what her name was. To him she replied: ‘If you ask my name, I am
called Caecilia, Christ’s servant.’ To her the chief prelate spoke: ‘How
can I believe this, since for a long time the story has been told that the
body of Caecilia, this venerable martyr of Christ, had been stealthily
purloined by Aistulf king of the Lombards and by his men, when he
was besetting Rome as an enemy.’ 44 When the venerable pontiff
suggested such things, almighty God’s handmaid said to him: ‘That the
Lombards sought eagerly to find me is certainly true; but I was aided
by the assistance of my Lord Jesus Christ and my lady, God’s holy
mother the ever-virgin Mary, and they were unable either to find me or
to take me far away from here as they wished. And so, as you have
begun to look for me, you should not stop applying yourself with
unceasing effort to find me, because the Lord God for whose love and
honour I suffered has been pleased that you should find me and bury me
in the church you have newly built.’ So saying, she was taken from his
sight.

16. Then, when morning praises were over, this venerable pontiff, in
view of the sign so clearly and indubitably revealed, painstakingly began
to seek here and there where her sacred body might lie buried. As he
sought carefully, God granted that he discovered it, clothed in gold
vestments, in the cemetery of Praetextatus 45 outside the Appian Gate,

body, but had given this up; now the reward for his effort would be to discover it
untouched. The variants in the letter (n. 42) are of little help to elucidate the sense (e g.
‘hesitation’ in place of ‘struggle’).

44 In 756; cf. 94:41.

45 This raises a problem. Caecilia’s traditional tomb is in a different cemetery, that of S.
Callisto (or St Xystus), just outside the papal crypt. The third of Bosio’s MSS of the
forged letter (n. 42) also gave the cemetery as Praetextati', of the other two MSS, one
gave Xysti seu Praetextati as in Baronius’s version, the other (unless it is Bosio’s
correction) sancti Sixti. The letter has: ‘we (Paschal), hastening to the cemetery of St
Xystus or Praetextatus sited outside the Porta Appia (as is clearly related in her holy
passion), found her with her venerable husband in golden garments among our colleagues
the bishops’. The LP omits this reference to the earlier popes, which must indicate the
papal crypt in S. Callisto. The Passion ofCaecilia(5//T 1495), perhaps of late 5th-century
date, also puts her ‘among the bishops’ and is likely to be the source of the letter; no
other evidence puts her inside the crypt, but the expression may have been used loosely
to mean the tomb just outside it. How is the conflict between the two cemeteries to be
resolved? De Rossi {Roma sotterranea 2.131-6) argued that Praetextati was wrong and
was to be corrected to Xysti or Callisti, to square with what he believed to be reality. But
since she was found next to Valerian (her supposed husband, and one of a trio of genuine

100. PASCHAL I

with the body of her venerable husband Valerian, 46 and also the linens
full of the blood of her martyrdom when, stricken by the ungodly
executioner, she was consecrated a martyr of the Lord Christ who reigns
for ever. These linens had been used to wipe away the holy martyr’s
blood; soaked in sacred blood from the executioner’s three strokes, they
were discovered wrapped at the feet of her body. 47 17. Handling all
these things himself, he gathered them and with great honour placed that
virgin’s body with the martyrs her dear husband Valerian and Tiburtius
and Maximus, also the pontiffs Urban and Lucius, under the sacred altar

Roman martyrs, with Tiburtius and Maximus) and he had certainly been in Praetextatus,
he had to believe that Valerian and his companions had been translated before Paschal’s
time to Callistus to be near her. To support this view, he cited the Hieronymian
Martyrology, which has the 3 martyrs both on 14 April in Praetextatus and on 21 April
but in Callistus, and suggested that the latter entry referred to such a translation. Duchesne
objected that all the 7th-century topographers put the 3 martyrs in Praetextatus, so the
supposed record on 21 April would have to be of a later translation; and from the textual
history of the Hieronymian this is impossible. In any case Hadrian I had recently restored
the basilica of Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus (LP 97:78 with n. 164), which he would
hardly have done if their bodies were no longer there (as Delehaye accepts, Mart. Hieron.
14 April). Duchesne concluded that the Hieronymian entry on 21 April was really the
Octave of the 3 martyrs, celebrated not at their own tomb but in Callistus where Caecilia,
the heroine of their legend, was buried. So the translation of the 3 from Praetextatus to
Callistus rests entirely on the forged letter, or rather a contamination of its text from the
passion of Caecilia; and this evidence is too weak if there is another explanation of how
Paschal found both Caecilia and Valerian in Praetextatus. Duchesne suggested that it was
not the 3 who were translated to Callistus, but Caecilia herself to Praetextatus, where
Paschal found her. This accords with the LP whose Roman author would not confiise two
cemeteries; and Paschal’s actions must have been well known at Rome. It also explains
how it had come to be believed that the Lombards had taken her body: if it was still at
Callistus how could any Roman, let alone a pope, not know it? Her tomb there was surely
empty. Perhaps her body was taken from it to Praetextatus during the Lombard invasion;
a custodian could have thought it wise to move the relics out of harm’s way; if this was
done secretly it could have been forgotten. Vogel accepted Duchesne’s hypothesis.
Meanwhile Franchi de’ Cavalieri (1912) rejected Praetextati and believed in a translation,
but merely from within the papal crypt to just outside it, where Paschal found her.
Delehaye objected to both De Rossi and Duchesne {Comm, in Mart. Hieron 21 April,
22 Nov.); the 3 martyrs were in Praetextatus; in the entry for them in the Hieronymian
on 21 April the location ‘at Callistus’ has slipped forward from the entry for pope Gaius,
buried there on 22 April; the day itself might or might not be an octave of their real feast
on 14 April. Delehaye did not explain how Caecilia could be in Praetextatus under
Paschal. The truth of course is that since Caecilia was not a genuine martyr, a body could
have been identified as hers in either cemetery, and the statement in the Passio may not
have been the only one current.

46 That the genuine martyr Valerian was the husband of Caecilia depends solely on the
fictitious Passion of Caecilia {BHL 1495); cf. n. 45.

47 The LP does not actually state that the body was incorrupt. The similar story that
during restorations at S. Cecilia in 1599 Cardinal Paolo Sfondrati opened the sarcophagus
and found it so is well-known; it was given originally by Baronius, 821 § 13ff; and is
highly dubious (cf. n. 65). Stefano Mademo’s white marble statue of the recumbent
Caecilia under the high altar (there is a copy at the tomb in S. Callisto) represents what
is reported to have been seen.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

in the church dedicated in the name of this holy martyr inside this city
of Rome’s walls, to almighty God’s praise and glory. 48

For the honour and help of these holy martyrs he built a monastery 49
close to that church at the place called Colies Jacentes in honour of the
virgins and martyrs SS Agatha and Caecilia; in it he set up a community
of monks serving God, to sing the daily praises to the Lord almighty in
this titulus of St Caecilia day and night. 18. For 50 the support and
fitting up of the lamps and for the monks’ 51 needs and remuneration,
and out of the love and regard he had towards his predecessor lord pope
Leo III of godly memory, he bethought himself of St Peregrinus’s
hostel, 52 which that predecessor of his had built at St Peter the apostle’s
at the place called Naumachia; it was being devoured by poverty and
want, thanks to the neglect and abandonment of those in charge. So to
give godly assistance for the said community of monks in that
monastery he confirmed for them by his written charter this hostel with
farms, homesteads and estates, tenants and houses, households and
everything as is fair and reasonable according to what the laws lay
down; the charter covered both what his predecessor donated to the
hostel, and what he himself in godly devotion added for the increase of
the monastery, in the way of lands, vines, houses and rural households. 53

48 DUmmler, MGH Poet. Lat. aevi Kar. 2.663 no. 3, gives from Baronius, 821 §7, the
verse inscription placed before the altar in the confessio, but containing as it does the
expression Paschalis primus it cannot be original. In one version of the forged letter (n.
42), Caecilia is translated not to S. Cecilia in Trastevere as in the LP but to the monastery
of SS Andrew and Gregory on the Caelian (on this church’s claims, De Rossi, Roma
sotterranea 2.136). Perhaps the Caelian claim originated from a corruption of Collis
iacentes , the location of the monastery near the titulus mentioned in this chapter. A mixed
text of the letter has Paschal put her in her titulus , under an altar of St Andrew, which is
then described as in the monastery of SS Andrew, Gregory, Agatha and Caecilia in the
place Collis iacentes. This name for the monastery clearly doubles up the dedications of
the two different monasteries. Bosio knew both versions; two of his MSS gave Trastevere,
the third gave the Caelian.

49 On this monastery, Ferrari, 23-5. Nearly all (including Krautheimer, Corpus 1.95-112)
agree that it was a new foundation, despite the discovery nearby in 1904 of the tombstone
of a 6th-century abbess. The monastery was not immediately adjoining the basilica of St
Caecilia, but at a short distance, ad colies iacentes (which refers to the hillside near the
basilica, the name deriving from some small district or street nearby); but it was near
enough for the monks to attend choir in the titulus day and night, Ferrari, 25; Armellini-
Cecchelli, Chiese, 825.

50 The contorted Latinity of this passage rather obscures the point that Paschal is giving
S. Pellegrino with its lands to the monastery of SS Agatha and Caecilia.

51 Those of SS Agatha and Caecilia in the previous chapter.

52 Cf. 98:81, 90 and n. 177. The hostel’s construction is here explicitly attributed to Leo
III, which helps to clarify 98:90.

53 This arrangement did not last. Under Leo IV the church and hostel of S. Pellegrino
with its many goods came under the jurisdiction of St Stephen Major’s, a grant known

100. PASCHAL 1

19. For love of the venerable saints, 54 to decorate this church 55 this
holy prelate provided an apse adorned with mosaic 56 and a silver
canopy 57 of wondrous size, weighing 600 lb 8 oz. He finished and
marvellously embellished the holy altar’s propitiatorium and the
confessio inside and out, and its grills, with silver sheets, weighing in
all 154 lb 15 oz 58 . At this virgin’s holy body 59 he presented an image of

from its confirmation on 24 March 1053 by Leo IX for the ‘canons’ residing in St
Stephen Major, and which provides information about Paschal’s arrangements (PL
143.717 n. 80; Ferrari, 321, n. 10, and 325; Schiaparelli 1901:473-477 n. 17). S.
Pellegrino’s properties included ‘the island Martana (in Lake Bolsena), the churches of
St Stephen and St Valentine with houses... as our predecessor Paschal, who had been
rector of that monastery, gave this patrimony... And Paschal himself as pontiff named the
monastery of the island St Stephen’s after the monastery of St Stephen Major in whose
jurisdiction it is ... St Mary’s church called ‘in Turre’ (the gatehouse to St Peter’s), which
Paschal granted in a privilege to the said monastery with books and vestments, crosses and
thuribles of silver, with houses and cells close to it, with the Paradise and the porticoes
as far as the Silver Door (the main door of St Peter’s) that you may close and open it,
with everything contained within them, with the sewer and the greater and lesser steps as
far as the piazza called Cortina’.

54 Agatha and Caecilia.

55 S. Cecilia in Trastevere (not S. Pellegrino).

56 The apse is semicircular, with a diameter of 30 Roman feet; its walls probably had
marble revetment, and it had four windows (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.110). The apse-mosaic
survives (Oakeshott, pp. 212-2, plates 129-131, 133, 137), despite damage by water.
Oakeshott describes it as one of the most moving for which Paschal was responsible. The
principal composition is copied from that at S. Prassede (itself based on SS Cosmas &
Damian’s), showing, below the Divine Hand, a wide-eyed Christ, standing in heavenly
glory, in front of clouds (but almost on a level with his followers, rather than high above
them as at S. Prassede), dressed in gold with lines of red, and with a gold halo; he is
giving a blessing in the Greek manner (fourth finger to the thumb). On his left and right
are Peter and Paul; on Peter’s left, Valerian (in unusual garments perhaps intended to
mark him out as a layman, a white mantle with gold decoration, above a green scarf) and
Caecilia, both with martyrs’ crowns; on Paul’s left, Agatha is presenting Paschal (depicted
as younger and more ‘spiritual’ than at S. Prassede, with a blue square halo edged with
white, and wearing a white dalmatic, gold chasuble, and later-style pallium). The ground
is of flowers, with palm-trees on either side, the one next to Paschal containing a phoenix.
All the figures are unnaturally tall and thin, and the composition is in general two-
dimensional and linear. At the summit of the vault is Paschal’s monogram. Below the
main design is the usual group of sheep on either side of the Lamb of God, with the cities
of Jerusalem and Bethlehem at each end. Below this is the inscription in gold lettering on
a deep-blue ground (ed. DUmmler, MGH Poet . Lat. aevi Kar. 2.662 no. 4). Duchesne
noted that there were also mosaics on the apse-arch, destroyed in 1725; in the springings
were the 24 Elders of Revelation; at the top the Virgin seated on a throne with the child
Jesus, between 2 angels; on right and left, separated by palmtrees, 10 female saints leaving
the mystical cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and approaching the Virgin’s throne.
Except for certain details this composition was copied on the facade-mosaic of S. Maria
in Trastevere.

57 After the mosaic, the LP deals with objects of precious metal and fabrics given at the
time of the foundation for the altar, the iconostasis, the body of the church, and the crypt.
But the order is not very systematic; the locations below follow Duchesne’s suggestions.
The canopy of course is over the altar.

58 The text may be wrong; there were 12, not 16, ounces in a pound.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

silver sheets weighing 95 lb. In front of the altar’s vestibule he provided
a cornice covered in silver sheets and 2 columns, where he placed 1
arch and 2 chevrons, weighing in all 100!/ 2 lb. There too 60 he presented
3 silver-gilt images weighing 4814 lb. 20. For this church’s arches 61 this
prelate provided 26 great silver chalices weighing in all 10914 lb. There
too he presented 62 2 silver canisters with six wicks, weighing 2 lb 9 oz;
a fine gold bowl weighing 3 lb. This pontiff provided 2 silver canisters
with nine wicks, weighing 10 lb; 3 silver bowls weighing 5 lb; a silver-
gilt thurible weighing 1 lb. For the holy altar 63 this kind prelate
provided a cloth of byzantine purple, with a gold-studded panel in the
middle representing an angel crowning St Caecilia and Valerian and
Tiburtius, with a gold-studded fringe decorated with wondrous beauty.
There too he provided a crimson gold-interwoven cloth with a fringe of
dyed purple round it. For love of this virgin he provided another purple
gold-interwoven cloth, embellished and adorned with a gold-worked
cross in the middle. On the same altar he provided a white medallioned
cloth with little roses, with a purple cross in the middle, with psilliae
and a fringe of byzantine purple, beautifully decorated. On the same
altar he presented a fourfold-woven cloth. The venerable pontiff
provided 4 crimson veils 64 hanging round the altar, with crosses and
chevrons of interwoven gold and fourfold weave. On the casket 65

59 The same expression as in c. 10; like S. Prassede, this church had an accessible annular
crypt. The next chapter mentions a casket ( arcella ) for the body, for which the pope offers
fabrics. There was certainly no altar inside the crypt. The image will presumably have
been of the saint herself.

60 Still at the iconostasis.

(ti In the body of the church; the 26 chalices are for suspending in the nave arcades.
There are in fact 13 arcades each side (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.110), if those of the
esonarthex are included and those of the entrance arcade excluded.

62 The canisters and bowls in this and the next sentence are lights, presumably for the
body of the church.

M This and the next few lines list five textiles for the altar, so that with one in use there
would be four spares.

64 Four curtains to hang between the canopy columns round the altar.

f ’ 5 Arcella : a casket or special reliquary; Duchesne noted that its location is not stated. As
altar ornaments have just been mentioned, and the next chapter starts with an arcella for
the body, he identified the latter as the arcella for the head; the diminutive would hardly
suit a sarcophagus for the whole body. The words ad corpus are omitted in some MSS
(the best has simply arcella)\ Duchesne thought that the longer reading, that best attested
in the MSS, was to be understood not as meaning ‘for’ the body but merely as an
indication of place - the reliquary ‘at the body’ in the crypt. This arcella was soon
replaced by a silver shell-shaped reliquary (c. 28) and it was Caecilia’s head which
Paschal put in it. In 105:41 it is still the head that is referred to: Leo IV gave it to SS
Quattro Coronati; Duchesne refrained from speculating whether this was the same head
Paschal had enshrined. A distribution of Caecilia’s relics is here attested by a
contemporary author who worked from the official records of the papal vesliarium , which

100. PASCHAL I

wherein he laid that virgin’s venerable head, he provided 66 a small
tyrian cloth with a purple fringe. There too he presented a green gold-
interwoven cloth; another cross-adorned cloth with a fringe of purple
dye; there too a cloth of purple with a gold-interwoven fringe. 21. In
the casket at this virgin’s body he provided a fourfold-woven cloth with
a fourfold-woven fringe, also another cloth, cross-adorned, with a fringe
of purple dye. In the same church 67 he provided 25 tyrian veils with a
fringe of byzantine purple, and 4 green veils with a fringe of dyed
purple. There too he presented 3 crimson veils with a fringe of purple,
also 2 small gold-interwoven veils with a purple fringe, and 2 tyrian
veils with a gold-interwoven fringe. For this church’s arches 68 this
venerable and distinguished pontiff provided 12 gold-interwoven veils
and 14 of fourfold weave. In the arches 69 of the presbyterium he
provided 12 small tyrian veils with a fringe of byzantine purple. At this
church’s entrance 70 this God-protected venerable prelate provided a great
fourfold-woven and cross-adorned curtain, beautifully adorned.

[A.D. 820-821:]

22. This pontiff, with his watchful concern for the monasteries
constructed all round, stuck to his purpose and inquired what they had.
He discovered that SS Sergius and Bacchus’s monastery 71 behind the
Lateran patriarchate’s aqueduct was destitute of everything, so that the
community of the Lord’s handmaids which existed in it, were, through
poverty and want, unable to sing any praises to the almighty Lord and
his saints. The venerable pastor was moved to pity by this inquiry. He
accomplished it that God’s handmaids could exist well and religiously;
and he gathered and set up a community of monks in it. He enriched

is an excellent reason for suspecting the story of Cardinal Sfondrati’s discoveries (n. 47).
Franchi de’ Cavalieri (1912) argued that the story of this discovery is untrustworthy and
that there is no reason why the head could not have been detached from the body and put
in a separate reliquary.

66 The rest of this chapter and the first sentence of the next record six textiles (one in use,
five spares) to cover the arcella of Caecilia’s relics.

67 We are back in the body of the church.

68 The arcades in the body of the church.

69 We are now back at the iconostasis; the 12 small veils are to hang in the arches of the
presbyterium , the sacred enclosure of the chancel.

70 Finally back to the body of the church: a large curtain for the main door.

71 This monastery was situated behind the Claudian aqueduct, on the other side of it in
relation to the Lateran Palace, and is to be identified with St Sergius at 98:79 (where see
n. 154). Paschal added it to the monasteries already charged with choir service at the
Lateran. Duchesne thought there were already three of these, but possibly there were only
two: St Pancras’s and SS Andrew and Bartholomew’s (on both see 97:68 for the choral
arrangements); there seems to be no evidence that St Stephen’s at the Lateran (98:76)
participated, though this is suggested at 98 n. 154.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

that monastery and increased it fully and adequately with many sources
of revenue in households, farmsteads, vineyards, houses, and places in
the city and countryside. He laid down that the resident community,
with every necessity provided for, should day and night chant praises
and hymns melodiously to the only God and his saints in the Saviour
our Lord Jesus Christ’s venerable church close to the Lateran.

23 . In SS Processus and Martinian the martyrs’ oratory, which he
himself had constructed, inside the church of St Peter prince of the
apostles, he presented a fine gold image with the face of God’s holy
mother, weighing 10 lb 4 oz. There too he provided a cloth of byzantine
purple, with 2 gold-studded panels, with the face of St Peter and of SS
Processus and Martinian, and a gold-studded fringe, adorned with great
beauty. Also there he presented an all-silk cloth, with a gold-studded
panel in the middle with the image 72 of our Lord Jesus Christ’s lordly
resurrection and a fringe of byzantine purple, beautifully embellished.
He also presented to these saints 9 all-silk veils with a fringe of fourfold
weave and byzantine purple. There too he provided 6 small tyrian veils,
with a gold-interwoven fringe; a silver thurible wondrously gilded,
weighing 1 lb.

24 . In SS Xystus and Fabian the martyrs’ oratory, 73 this pontiff
provided 3 silver bowls weighing 5 lb 6 oz. In front of this oratory’s
image he provided a gold-studded veil, wondrously adorned. On their
venerable altar he provided a crimson cloth, with a cross of byzantine
purple in the middle and a fringe also of purple. Also in this oratory
this pontiff presented an all-silk cloth with 2 gold-studded crosses in the
middle and a cross-adorned fringe, decorated with various pearls. There
too he provided another gold-interwoven cloth with a purple cross in the
middle. To decorate this oratory he provided 4 crimson veils with a
fringe of byzantine purple; also 4 all-silk veils with a fringe of fourfold
weave and of dyed purple.

25 . In SS Cosmas and Damian the martyrs’ church 74 on the Via Sacra
this kind prelate provided a tyrian cloth, with a gold-studded panel in
the middle with the face of our Lord Jesus Christ and the martyrs SS
Cosmas and Damian with the three other brothers, 75 with a gold-worked

72 So, it seems, for vultus\ the face alone could hardly be shown resurrecting.

71 In St Peter’s, like the last-mentioned oratory; cf. c. 5 and n. 14.

74 Founded by Felix IV (56:2 BP 51); often called ‘at the Three Fates’, cf. 97 n. 87.

75 Cosmas and Damian were supposed to have had 3 brothers Anthimus, Leontius and
Euprepes, also martyrs; this is the earliest reference to them at Rome, where Cosmas and
Damian had been known since at least the early 6th century (LP 53:9 BP 46). The 3
names (with the variant Leon for Leontius) appear with Cosmas and Damian on 27
October as martyrs in Arabia in the Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum (ed. Delehaye

100. PASCHAL I

cross and an all-silk fringe, beautifully embellished and adorned. On top
of their sacred altar he presented a tyrian cloth wondrously adorned. In
front of that altar’s vestibule he provided 3 tyrian veils with a fringe of
byzantine purple.

26. In the Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ’s monastery in the territory
of Rieti, 76 the venerable pontiff provided a gold-studded cloth
representing our Lord Jesus Christ resplendent in heaven with archangels
and apostles, decorated with wondrous beauty with various pearls. To
decorate the holy altar in the same monastery he presented another gold-
interwoven cloth, with crosses of byzantine purple and a gold-studded
fringe, wondrously decorated.

[A.D. 821-822:]

In St Mennas the martyr’s church he provided a fourfold-woven cloth
with a fringe of byzantine purple.

In St Peter the apostle’s church at Centumcellae 77 this holy and
angelic pontiff presented a silver-gilt chalice and paten weighing 4 lb 3
oz.

27. In the church of St Peter the apostle his mentor he provided a
gospel-book with a silver cover weighing 8 lb 8 oz.

In St Stephen the first martyr’s monastery, 78 called Major, at St
Peter’s, the kind prelate provided 4 white all-silk cloths, with gold-
worked crosses in the middle, with various pearls and a purple fringe,
wondrously adorned. There too this pontiff presented a gold-interwoven

144.24), though not on the other dates (1 July, 29 October, 1 November, 9 December)
when Cosmas and Damian (the same or supposed homonyms) were honoured in the east.
In the west, where Cosmas and Damian were celebrated on 27 September, the extra names
are unknown to the Martyrologium Hieronymianum in the late 6th century, to Bede in the
8th century, and, in the first half of the 9th century, to the Anonymus Lugdunensis and
to Florus; but they soon appeared in Wandelberf s verse martyrology ( MGH Poet . Lat
aevi Kar. 2.595, vv. 598-600) and in the first edition of Ado ( Le martyrologe d'Adon ,
edd. J. Dubois & G. Renaud, 329-331); hence they were adopted by Usuard, and by the
Roman Martyrology of the 16th century. The source of Wandelbert and Ado will be one
of the unedited passions of Cosmas and Damian (BHL 1968, 1971-5), likely to be of little
historical value.

76 Cfi 96;5»

77 Despite Gregory Ill’s fortifications (92:16) the Saracens had pillaged Centumcellae in
813 (cl 105:99) and scattered its inhabitants. A church could well have survived. ARF
813 Scholz 96 describes how Count Irmingar of Ampurias set an ambush near Majorca
for the Moors who were returning from Corsica to Spain with much booty; he captured
8 ships, on which he found more than 500 Corsican prisoners. In revenge the Moors
ravaged Centumcellae in Tuscia and Nice in Narbonensis; attacking Sardinia also, they
were repelled, defeated in battle by the Sardinians, and turned back after losing many of
their men. The city would be refounded by Leo IV on a new site and named Leopolis
(105:99-102). See Lauer 1900:147ff; Calisse 1908.

78 The monastery where Paschal had once been abbot, cf. c. 2.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

cloth, with a gold-worked cross in the middle and a gold-studded fringe.
In the same monastery this prelate provided a gold-interwoven cloth,
with a gold-studded panel in the middle with the face of God’s holy
mother and the apostles SS Peter and Paul, and a purple fringe. There
too he presented 2 cross-adorned cloths, with gold-studded crosses in the
middle and a purple fringe. For this oratory’s decoration he provided a
great fourfold-woven veil, with 4 gold-worked crosses in the middle and
a purple fringe.

28. In the holy Archangel’s deaconry this pontiff presented a cloth of
byzantine purple, with a gold-studded cross in the middle and a gold-
studded fringe, beautifully embellished.

In St Caecilia the martyr’s church he provided a silver shell, in which
he laid that virgin’s precious head, 79 weighing S l / 2 lb.

In St Cyriac the martyr’s church in Thermit this prelate presented
8 go Id-interwoven veils, with a gold-interwoven fringe.

[A.D. 822-823:J

29. In the holy Archangel’s oratory, 81 which his predecessor lord pope
Leo had once established and constructed, this pontiff, relying on God,
provided an all-silk white cloth with a gold-studded panel in the middle
representing our Lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection, and a gold-studded
fringe, wondrously adorned. There too he presented another cloth
interwoven with gold, with a fringe of byzantine purple. In the same
oratory this pontiff provided another cloth of fourfold weave, sown
around, representing God’s holy mother, beautifully embellished and
adorned.

30. This holy and orthodox pontiff, spurred by God’s inspiration,
observed that the holy and undefiled virgin Mary our lady’s church
called Ad Praesepe had formerly been constructed in such a way that
women standing behind the pontiffs seat for the holy ceremonies of
mass were almost next to the pontiff; 82 consequently, if the pontiff

79 See n. 65.

80 See 97:70 with n. 137.

81 The oratory of St Michael at the Lateran Palace; cf. 98:92 with n. 179.

82 All that follows describes alterations to the west end of the 5th-century basilica made
long before Nicholas IV in 1295 constructed the present (7 m deep) transept and apse.
Corbett’s hypothetical drawing of Paschal’s arrangements of this part of the basilica is
given in Krautheimer, Corpus 3.53 fig. 54; apart from the LP, the main source for the
arrangements from Paschal’s time till 1295 is John the Deacon, Liber de ecclesia
Lateranensi (written between 1073 and 1159; PL 194.1557) c. 14, who states that at St
Mary’s the throne was under a window in an apse that had 5 windows. The difficulty is
to explain the pre-Paschal arrangement. Following De Rossi, Duchesne explained the
passage as follows. The throne was too low down and too close to the matroneum , so the
women could overhear the pope’s conversation. The original apse pavement was at nave

100. PASCHAL I

wanted to have any conversation with his assistants, he could not do so,
given the women’s very close crowding, without their intruding; and he
observed that there was a broad enough space available so that the seat
could be moved from there. Putting endeavour into the task, he began
to act unremittingly to raise on high the seat which was set too low
down, so that he could pour forth prayers in greater intimacy with the
Lord, by arranging that the concourses of people should instead be at a
slightly lower level. He fashioned the seat better than it had formerly
been, adorned with beautiful marble, and constructed from each side
steps by which to reach it. And raising 83 the altar’s pavement he covered
it with precious marble. 31 . Therein he set up 6 columns 84 of purple
colour in front of the holy altar’s confessio; on top of these he placed

level (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.52), and the matroneum was behind the apse, no doubt
because it could not be set in its usual place at the end of the women’s (right-hand) side
of the church, the top of the side aisle being a sort of vestibule for the Manger. The apse
was supported not by a wall but on columns; further back a concentric semi-circular wall
formed the basilica’s outer wall. Between this wall and the presbyterium was the
matroneum , from which the presbyterium was visible through the arches formed by the
columns. Traces of a similar arrangement have been seen at, e.g., SS Cosmas and
Damian’s, in two churches at Naples, and in Duchesne’s time at the basilica of St
Demetrius at Salonika where, he stated, it was easy to distinguish the later masonry built
to blind the apse arcades and support the apse vault. At St Mary Major the papal throne
was in the centre, and it occupied the middle of the 5 arcades; that there were 5 arcades
follows from there being 5 windows above (John the Deacon). That the present apse has
only 4 windows is irrelevant: it is not even on the same site as the pre-1295 apse. When
the throne was still at ground level, the women in the matroneum could overhear the pope.
Paschal raised it a few steps to stop this. Pesarini (Studi Romani 1.416) suggested a
slightly different explanation: a presbyterium like that at St Paul’s between the altar and
the apse; this also gives 2 concentric semi-circles, but the complete enclosure was the apse
itself, open to the women, who were kept from the presbyterium and the throne by the
inner pierced colonnade; Paschal removed the pierced colonnade and moved the throne
to the back of the apse (much as Sixtus V did at St Paul’s). But while this was possible
at St Paul’s with its 22 m deep transept, St Mary’s then had no transept; there would be
no space for an inner colonnade. But it may be that the explanations of De Rossi,
Duchesne and Pesarini are all misconceived. Krautheimer {Corpus 3.52) nowhere assumes
a double apse, and considers that Paschal’s changes are best explained by supposing that
the women stood in the aisle, and that the throne was beside the high altar but close to
the last part of the nave colonnade; so Paschal moved the throne to the apse beneath the
middle window (of the 5), where John the Deacon later saw it.

** This was to stop the newly-raised throne dominating the altar. In the 17th century
Strozzi saw what must have been this 9th-century pavement, some 33 cm above the
original nave level (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.52). Cf. the activity of Gregory IV at S. Maria
in Trastevere (103:31-2), though he had the added problem of housing relics.

84 The text now describes how after transferring the throne to the apse Paschal installed
a pergola (in effect an iconostasis) of six porphyry columns bearing a white marble
architrave or lintel (‘beam’). Four of the six columns were still there in the 16th century
(Krautheimer, Corpus 3.52). Duchesne believed that the fine porphyry columns that now
carry the baldacchino in St Mary Major’s are four of Paschal’s set of six. For the lamps
and curtains connected with the pergola see cc. 32 and 36.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

a beam of white marble; and linking them on right and left 85 with new
purple marble, 86 he decorated them with engravings and adorned them
very neatly. He repaired this church’s presbyterium with various
marble, 87 an improvement on how it used to be.

He wondrously adorned the holy altar’s propitiatorium and the
confessio inside and out, and its grills, with fine gold weighing 174 lb
6 oz. He also embellished this basilica’s altar with silver sheets with
various representations, and gilded it; 88 it weighs 385 lb. 32. There too,
the kind and distinguished prelate presented 6 bowls 89 of fine gold with
various jewels, weighing 20 lb 6 oz; he laid down that day and night
they should always be alight in front of the sacred altar. Relying on
God’s inspiration he presented in this basilica 8 silver arches with 16
columns, 90 weighing 218 lb 8 oz. In front of the altar’s vestibule 91 he
provided great silver railings weighing 78 lb. There too he presented 6
chandeliers, 92 weighing 6014 lb. Also, for this church’s great arches he
provided 42 great hanging chalices of silver, 93 weighing in all 281 lb.
There too, for love of our same lady the Virgin, the venerable prelate
presented 4 silver crowns weighing 62 lb 3 oz; also 2 silver canisters
weighing 13Va lb. 94 He also provided there a silver-gilt image with the

85 ‘On right and left’: the columns were in two groups of three, with no link in the central
gap.

86 i.e. the columns were linked by a balustrade of porphyry.

87 John the Deacon (n. 82) states that the apse’s mosaic decoration had ‘fish among
flowers, and animals with birds’, but does not say whether the mosaic was on the apse-
vault or the pavement; the LP description of variegated marble panels suggests a
pavement, so this may be what Paschal installed, Krautheimer, Corpus 3.52.

88 For compsit with deauravit cf. c. 10; but there and here deauravit may be an error for
decoravit, linked with compsit elsewhere in this life.

89 Lighting fixtures. Krautheimer, Corpus 3.53, suggests that they were six bracket-lamps
for the six columns of the pergola.

90 After the altar, the LP deals with the presbyterium. ‘With’ means ‘resting on’,
Krautheimer, who {Corpus 3.53) finds the 8 arches and 16 columns more obscure than the
pergola, but notes that they are mentioned immediately before the silver main gates at the
altar vestibule, and thinks they may have formed a fenced-off area in front of the altar,
like the early scholae cantorum at S. Marco and S. Pietro in Vincoli, but made of metal
rather than masonry. Duchesne’s explanation was that the enclosure had 8 arcades each
supported by 2 colonnettes; if the iconostasis was at the 2nd nave-column, the enclosure
had 7 arcades supported by the 6 porphyry columns, then the 2 intercolumniations of the
nave; so, not counting the central arcade (the altar-vestibule, dealt with next), there were
8 openings, hence 8 arches with 16 columns.

91 The central approach to the presbyterium in front of the altar.

92 Either (Duchesne) one chandelier in front of each of the pergola’s 6 porphyry columns,
or (Krautheimer) one above each of the columns, on the marble lintel.

93 Lighting fixtures. There were 42 intercolumniations in the nave; cf. Leo Ill’s 42 veils
(98:50). The LP writes ‘arches’ even though the colonnade had an architrave.

94 The crowns and canisters are lamps; the figures 4 and 2 suggest that they were

100. PASCHAL I

face of God’s holy mother Mary, weighing 17 lb 3 oz. 33. On this
basilica’s sacred altar, 95 the servant of Christ the Lord almighty
presented 2 gold-studded cloths representing our Lord Jesus Christ’s
nativity, with a fringe, decorated with various jewels and wondrously
adorned with pearls. There too he presented another gold-studded cloth
representing our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism by John in the Jordan, with
a gold-studded fringe, wondrously adorned. There too he embellished
a gold-studded cloth representing our Lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection,
with a gold-studded fringe and decorated with various pearls. 34. Led
by God’s love, this holy and venerable pontiff provided there on the
same altar another gold-studded cloth representing God’s blessed
mother’s bodily assumption, with a gold-studded fringe and beautifully
embellished and adorned with various pearls. There too the kind prelate
provided another gold-studded cloth representing our Lord Christ’s
ascension, fitly adorned. There too, for love of the same virgin, he
constructed another gold-studded cloth representing the coming of the
Holy Ghost on the apostles, decorated and adorned with various pearls.
He also joined to it another gold-studded cloth representing Palm
Sunday, modestly embellished and adorned. There too this pontiff
embellished another all-silk cloth with a gold-interwoven fringe. Also,
for weekdays, he presented 2 gold-interwoven cloths with a fourfold-
woven fringe, beautifully decorated. 35. Spurred by God’s inspiration,
this holy prelate provided for this church’s great arches 96 14 gold-
interwoven veils and 14 of fourfold-weave, also 14 of imizilum. For
love of our same lady, our Lord Jesus Christ’s servant provided for the
arches of this church’s presbyterium 26 gold-studded veils, 97
representing our Lord Jesus Christ and the nativity and assumption of
the same undefiled virgin. For the same arches he also presented 24
veils of fourfold weave, sown round with various representations. The
almighty Lord Christ’s servant presented a wondrously adorned
alexandrian tapestry high up in the aspectus 98 of the apse. 36. He also

connected with the pergola.

95 The text moves to the hangings and textiles, beginning with 11 fabrics (1 in use, 10
spare?) for the altar, occupying all of cc. 33-34.

96 Three sets of 14 veils, for the 42 intercolumniations of the nave.

97 Duchesne noted that two groups of veils are attributed to the presbyterium -arcades, one
of 26, one of 24 veils; probably the figures should be the same; 24 is better, as a multiple
of 8 (the presbyterium had 8 arcades, above). This would provide 3 or 6 sets, depending
whether the curtains were draped in pairs or one by one.

98 aspectus is obscure. Perhaps this tapestry was behind the throne in the opening of the
central arcade, the place mentioned in 98:95: ‘over the perch above the throne*.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

presented on that basilica’s great beam" a great veil of interwoven
gold, with 7 gold-studded panels and a fringe of byzantine purple; to
decorate the same basilica he provided on that beam 6 fourfold-woven
veils and 4 veils of imizilum. Close to the vestibule of the altar in the
apse 100 this pontiff provided 12 fourfold-woven veils; there too, 6 purple
veils. At the entrance 101 to the same basilica this venerable prelate
provided a great alexandrian curtain, embellished and adorned with
various representations. Also, for weekdays, he presented another
wondrously adorned alexandrian curtain. In the same basilica the kind
and distinguished pontiff presented 6 white all-silk veils on the great
beam, with a gold-interwoven fringe. In this basilica’s apse he placed
6 white veils with a gold-interwoven fringe; also 4 white veils with a
fringe of byzantine purple.

37. Since this thrice-blessed pastor often bestowed such great concern
and watchfulness on the condition of God’s holy churches, in the same
basilica he also wondrously embellished and adorned the altar of the
Manger 102 and the venerable confessio on the farther and the nearer sides
with fine gold with various representations, weighing 134 lb 4 oz; onto
it he fixed silver-gilt with various representations, weighing 254 lb 4 oz.
There too this pontiff presented 3 bowls of fine gold with various
jewels, weighing in all 8 lb 10 oz. He also placed there 5 crimson veils
with a fringe of byzantine purple.

38. In his heartfelt love this holy bishop provided in Christ’s martyr
St Caecilia’s church a gold-studded cloth representing our Lord Jesus

w Duchesne located this beam below the triumphal arch, but there was no such arch
before 1295; though perhaps there could have been a beam across between the nave
architraves in front of the presbyterium\ the ‘great veil’ could have been draped from it
down to the pavement of the church. Immediately after come 10 veils (6 and 4) arranged
‘on the beam ... to decorate the same basilica’. A little lower comes another group of 6
and 4 veils for the same place; Duchesne could not see how to combine these with the
great veil. But for Krautheimer, Corpus 3.52, the large curtain is for the new pergola’s
(c. 31) wider central opening; the 10 curtains are also for the pergola, 6 perhaps for the
column shafts and 4 for the lateral intercolumniations. The words, half-way through the
chapter, ‘for weekdays’, may cover the rest of the chapter; if so, all the items following
are cheaper spare sets of curtains.

100 Duchesne believed this referred to the lateral arcades of the apse; the central arcade
has already been provided for. The veils for the apse are distributed in twelves or sixes,
and the figure six recurs a little further on.

101 Clearly the main door (cf. c. 21 and n. 70); Duchesne remarked that it was still
customary to hang door-curtains ( cortinae) in the open bays of the doors of basilicas.

102 The Praesepe after which S. Maria Maggiore was at this date generally named; cf.
92:8 with n. 30. The Manger altar first occurs at 97:84 (A.D. 785-6). The relic and
memoria of the Manger were in a separate oratory with its own altar and confessio. It was
moved in 1588 to the new Sixtine Chapel within the basilica; a 16th-century plan
(Krautheimer’s figure 28a in Corpus 3) shows its earlier (original?) site.

100. PASCHAL I

Christ’s resurrection wonderfully embroidered and adorned.

[A.D. 823-824:]

On the altar of St Peter prince of the apostles, where his holy body
lies, this God-protected, venerable and distinguished pontiff provided a
spanoclist deep yellow gold propitiatorium , depicted with various
representations and wondrously adorned, weighing 200 lb. For the love
of God’s same apostle his mentor he presented in the same church for
the arches of the presbyterium 46 gold-studded veils representing our
Lord Jesus Christ’s passion and resurrection.

In the martyrs SS Cosmas and Damian’s church on the Via Sacra he
provided an all-silk cloth beautifully embellished and adorned.

39. In God’s holy mother the ever-virgin Mary our lady’s basilica
called ad Praesepe this kind prelate provided 6 gold bowls, adorned
with various jewels, weighing 6 lb; there too he presented a fine gold
apostolic 103 bowl weighing 5 lb; there too he provided 8 silver
chandeliers weighing in all 82 lb. For love of our same lady he
presented in that basilica 4 columns and 1 arch, weighing in all 60 lb.
This pontiff provided on that church’s venerable altar a white cloth with
a gold-studded cross in the middle, sown round with various jewels and
beautifully decorated; he linked with it another cloth of byzantine
purple, it too with a gold-studded cross, becomingly decorated with
various stones. To adorn that church he also provided for the arches of
the presbyterium .. gold-studded veils representing our Lord Jesus
Christ’s passion and resurrection. On that church’s great beam he
presented 6 other veils with a fourfold-woven fringe. On that church’s
beams he provided 6 gold-interwoven veils. Round that church’s altar
he presented 4 white all-silk veils with a fourfold-woven fringe.

40. In God’s blessed mother’s church called Domnica this venerable
prelate provided silver railings 104 weighing 66 lb.

In God’s blessed mother our lady’s church at Vescovio 105 in Sabina
he provided a gold-interwoven cloth with a fringe of byzantine purple.

He died when God called him. He was buried in St Peter’s. 106 He

105 apostolatus\ the meaning may be *a lamp adorned with figures of the apostles’ (in a
Roman context probably just Peter and Paul).

104 Or ‘grills’; probably for the confessio (so Krautheimer, Corpus 3.310). For the
building of this church and its other decorations see cc. 11-14.

105 Episcopio , whence the modem form of the place-name. Duchesne (1.188 n. 7) noted
that in the 9th century the seat of the bishopric of Sabina was still in its ancient place at
Forum Novum, where this church, called S. Maria di Vescovio, survives. It is mentioned
in a letter by Hadrian I in 781 (J2433, CC p. 219): ‘the church of God’s mother Mary in
the place called Foronovo’.

106 The compiler fails to mention that the burial was carried out with some difficulty.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

performed two ordinations, one in December, the other in March, ..
priests, 7 deacons; for various places .. bishops. His bishopric was
vacant 4 days in January of the 1st indiction [823]. 107

Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris 30: ‘Pope (Paschal) died, and the Roman people did
not want his corpse buried in the church of St Peter the apostle, before pope Eugene
succeeded him; and he ordered his body to be buried in the place that he, while alive, had
constructed’. The tomb was probably in one of the two chapels he had founded, that of
SS Processus and Martinian, or that of SS Xystus and Fabian. The epitaph is lost. For the
troubles at this date see also ARF 824 Scholz 115, and Paschasius Radbertus, Vita Walae
1.28 Cabaniss 143; and the discussion in the introduction to life 101. Such a popular
uproar suggests that Paschal was detested and had made many enemies as a result of his
harsh rule; see the introduction to this life.

107 The vacancy was 5 days; and the month and year stated (January 823) are false. The
year was 824, cf. ARF 824 Scholz 115, Annales Auscienses , MGHSS 3.171 etc. For the
calendar date of Paschal’s death (16 February) see 101:1 n. 1, evidence not known to
Duchesne, who placed Paschal’s death on 11 February 824, a Saturday (it was in fact a
Thursday).

101. EUGENE II (824-827).

The author of this life adopts a very simple language and
straightforward style, but his text is unfinished and seems to be no more
than a preliminary draft, produced with what Duchesne described as a
quite peculiar negligence in contrast with the rest of the LP. The faults
are due in part to its incompleteness, but it may be doubted if a finished
version would have provided much more than the register material on
which the compiler had embarked where the text breaks off. Two MSS
(CE) attempt to supplement the lack of even the usual formulaic
material; they cannot name the pope’s father, but they claim that the
pope was of Roman origin (true no doubt - he was the candidate of the
nobility) and attribute a false length to his tenure of the see. So it is no
surprise that we hear nothing, for instance, of Eugene’s concern for the
pagan Danes. Eugene extended the commendation Paschal had given to
Ebbo of Rheims to include Anskar and his companions, and they began
their missionary labours in autumn 826 (J2564).

It is far more serious that the very significant political events of this
pontificate are alluded to in only the vaguest way (c. 3, return of
exiles). That Eugene’s election was disputed is asserted categorically by
ARF 824, though the LP mentions no competition and claims that
Eugene was elected by the whole Roman people (c. 2), a notion
repeated at 102:4. It is usually thought that the authors of the LP are
here disingenuous. But it may be that they are, albeit misleadingly,
noting that (thanks to the Ludovicianum of 817) the electorate was no
longer limited to the clergy as it had been since 769.

The actual wording of ARF is important:

‘In his (Paschal’s) place, when two were elected in a popular dispute, yet Eugene
archpriest of St Sabina’s titulus, the faction of the nobles being victorious, was put
forward ( subrogatus ) and elected. When the subdeacon Quirinus had brought the news
of this to the emperor (Louis), he, at a meeting about 24 June at Compi&gne...’

The translation in Scholz, 115, clearly takes subrogatus to mean that
Eugene was a substitute for the dead Paschal rather than for other
candidates, I think wrongly. The difficulties surrounding Eugene’s
election are confirmed by Paschasius Radbertus, Vita Walae 1.28; he
records how the monk Wala, adviser to Louis and Lothar, returned to
France

‘with almost all matters put right and holy Eugene ordained as bishop of the apostolic
see; and he (Wala) is said to have put much effort into his ordination (or ‘into
arranging this’ but not, pace Cabaniss, 143, ‘in administration’), so that somehow
things which had been negligently corrupted for a long time by many men might
thereafter be put to rights through him (Eugene).’

From these two Frankish accounts it is clear that Wala exercised some

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

influence in securing the election of a candidate from among the
nobility, in contrast, therefore, to Paschal, who had been supported by
the clerical bureaucracy. So, for example, Duchesne:

‘Eugene’s accession was a reaction against Paschal’s policy which had been rumblingly
hostile to the empire in so far as this claimed authority over the city and territory of
Rome.’

So it is generally assumed that Eugene defeated a candidate from
among Paschal’s supporters. This inference is, I believe, false: it does
not account for the fact that the name of the competitor is nowhere
recorded, and more seriously it does not allow for the use of the word
subrogatus in ARF. The Annals are specific that there was a double
election before Eugene was ‘substituted’; the words surely mean that the
popular faction, itself divided, produced and even elected two
candidates, allowing the nobles to substitute Eugenius.

What is more, the events have to be fitted into the newly established
chronology (see n. 1 to the life), on which Eugene’s election took place
on the day of Paschal’s death, 16 February, and his ordination five days
later. On the old dating Eugene was not elected and ordained until early
June and it was assumed that disturbances after Paschal’s death lasted
several months with the nobility and the clerical bureaucracy each
making a rival nomination; eventually Wala somehow pushed through
the ordination of the candidate favoured by the nobility and by himself.
Eugene immediately notified the Frankish court and swore his oath of
loyalty to Louis (on the meaning of this oath see below). The subdeacon
Quirinus took the news to Louis some time before a meeting held at
Compiegne about 24 June, and in August Louis sent Lothar to Rome.

Some modification of this is required if Eugene’s ordination was
three months earlier than formerly assumed. The ‘disturbances’ (in
Wala) may refer to events before Paschal’s death and possibly
continuing after Eugene’s election, not merely in the interval between
the two events. The double election to which ARF refers surely means
that the non-noble ‘popular’ faction was itself split and could not decide
between two of its own candidates. And perhaps it was this very fact
that gave Wala the opportunity to rush the election and ordination of a
third candidate, Eugene, who was ‘substituted’ before the opposition
could unite. Louis may well have heard the news well before 24 June.
Since there was no urgency shown between June, when Louis decided
to send his son Lothar to Rome, and Lothar’s actual departure after mid-
August, there is equally no reason to suppose that the council held at
Compiegne in late June was held very soon after Quirinus’s arrival.

At Compiegne, Louis decided to send Lothar to Rome,

‘so that in his stead he might lay down and fix with the new pontiff and the Roman
people what the need of the situation demanded... Lothar... was honourably received
by the pontiff Eugene. When he had informed him of his instructions, with the

101. EUGENE II

benevolent assent of this pontiff he so corrected the state of the Roman people, which
had for a long time been corrupted by the perversity of certain prelates [popes, cf.
Astronomer below], that all who had been seriously desolated by the seizure of their

property were magnificently consoled by the return of their goods which had occurred
thanks to his arrival, God granting it’ ( ARF 824).

Astronomer, Vita Hludovici Pii 38, is more explicit than the Annals:

‘When there was an inquiry into what had happened, that is, why those who had been
loyal to the emperor and to himself and to the Franks had been destroyed by a wicked
death, and those who survived were held as a laughing-stock to the rest, and why such
great quarrels resounded against the pontiffs of the Romans and the judges, it was
found that by the ignorance or lack of concern of certain pontiffs [Leo III and Paschal]
and by the blind and insatiable cupidity of many judges the estates of many had been
unjustly confiscated. And so, for returning what had been unjustly taken away, Lothar
created great joy for the Roman people.’

Lothar’s Constitutio (see below) names three dead victims of the
recent troubles; one, Theodore, is clearly the primicerius killed in 823;
Floro and Sergius are unknown. But in all three cases their families had
been ruined, and restitution was now to be made.

The impression from these Frankish documents is confirmed by the
brief remark in the LP (c. 3) about the return of exiles (otherwise
unrecorded) and restoration of property; the latter is attributed to
Eugene, not Lothar, but we may assume the two were in agreement.

Lothar was in Rome on 13 November 824 when in his presence and
at his request Eugene conferred the pallium on archbishop Adalram
{MGH Ep 5.313). It was in the same month, and we must assume that
it was again with Eugene’s agreement, that Lothar published his
Constitutio Romana (MGH Cap 1, 322-4). By this he fulfilled his
father’s mandate: the frequent troubles and arbitrary judicial excesses
that had marked the pontificates of Leo and Paschal were to be ended
and order restored by modifying the relationship between Rome and the
empire.

The constitutional issues are fully discussed by Noble, 313-322, to
whom the following account is heavily indebted. He sees the agreement
as both conservative, safeguarding the position of the papal state, and
innovative: while it does not give the western emperor any equivalent
to the former Byzantine control over Rome it does go beyond the
Ludovicianum of 817, establishing an imperial envoy in Rome and so
linking the state more closely to the empire.

The Constitutio deals firstly (art. 1) with the law of persons, giving
immunity to anyone who has procured the pope’s or the emperor’s

special protection; anyone violating this is liable to the death penalty.
‘We also decree that they are to observe just obedience in all things to the apostolic
lord and his leaders and judges, for bringing about justice’.

Ordinary inhabitants of Rome (art. 5) are to chose once for all whether
they wish to live under Roman, Frankish or Lombard law, and this is

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

to be respected, with access to the appropriate courts (this would protect
the many non-Romans who lived in the state and preferred Germanic
law). All who have suffered injustice are to be compensated (Lothar did
not regard papal officials as blameless).

Many articles are intended to control the behaviour of dukes and
officials at Rome. They are to obey the pope, and every year the
officials must attend on the emperor so that he can advise them on their
functions (art. 8), but it is not suggested that they are Louis’s appointees
or that he could dismiss them. Noble (320-1) sees this as a means to
give fuller protection to everyone in the papal state, as a guarantee to
the pope against his own officials, and as in no way reducing the pope’s
privilege as a direct overlord within the empire.

The people are not to attack the pope or each other. Two permanent
envoys are to be established, one appointed by the pope, the other by
the emperor; these are to report every year to the emperor on how the
dukes and judges dispense justice. Complaints against negligence by the
dukes and judges are to be addressed by these envoys to the pope, who
is to select one of the envoys to put matters right; if the pope fails to do
this immediately, the imperial envoy is to tell the emperor, who will
send other envoys to settle matters (art. 4). Noble (321) comments that
the imperial envoy resembles a referee more than an official placed to
challenge the pope’s authority. But Benedict, brother of Sergius II, may
have owed his power in Rome to his being one of these envoys (see pp.
73-4).

Papal elections are dealt with in article 3; the electorate is to be

‘the Romans to whom the privilege had been granted from of old by the constitutions

of the holy Fathers’.

This included the laity, as had been done already in the pact of 817,
when the untraditional decision of Stephen Ill’s synod in 769 reserving
the elections to the clergy had been abrogated (cf. n. 64 to 96:20). And
sure enough the LP henceforth mentions or implies the role of the laity,
often stressing the part played by the nobles: in 827 for Valentine
(102:4) and for Gregory IV (103:4); in 844 for Sergius II (104:4); in
847 for Leo IV (105:5); in 855 for Benedict III (106:4); in 858 for
Nicholas (107:5-6; the clergy and the nobility gather with ‘all the
people’ in one fairly small basilica); in 867 for Hadrian II (108:4, 6; all
the Romans and strangers present, rich and poor, clerical and lay,
demand Hadrian, but the election itself is carried out by the bishops, the
clergy, the nobles and their ‘compliant’ people!).

The Carolingians did not attempt to resuscitate the (largely
theoretical) right the Byzantine emperors had had to refuse to confirm
the candidate elected. The only difference, a rather minor one, from the
arrangements of 817 is that in the oath they would have to take to the

101. EUGENE II

two emperors (see below) the Romans would, have to swear not to
interfere unjustly and uncanonically in the election, and not to allow the
ordination of the elected candidate to go ahead until the emperor’s
envoy had confirmed fair play. Hitherto the emperors had taken no part
at all in the election; the recent disorders in Rome produced this
arrangement by which they could now take punitive action against any
who interfered with the electoral arrangements established in 817. One
effect of the arrangment would be a prolonged interval if the emperor’s

envoy were not present.

It also emerges (from the last part of the oath taken by the Romans)
that before being ordained a pope-elect was to take an oath, such as
Eugene had already given in writing, before the imperial legate. This
must have been part of the pact in 824 (there are no reasons to suppose
another pact in 825); and it clearly became the norm, even if we have
no information on what happened when Valentine became pope in 827.
The delay between Gregory IV’s election that same year and his
ordination gave time for the legate to arrive to receive the oath (see 103
n. 11). In 844 Sergius II delayed swearing until after his ordination
(104:15); Leo IV’s oath in 847 is specifically mentioned in the
Ottonianum of 962 (Sickel 1883:181). This papal oath has been
generally assumed to be one of loyalty sworn by a subject to the
emperor, and as a far greater acknowledgment of imperial sovereignty
than Eugene’s predecessors had made. Others have suggested that it was
the oath taken by Eugene ratifying the Constitution henceforth to be
taken by his successors before their consecration. But the oath to be
sworn is one that Eugene had already sworn (perhaps in Wala’s
presence) before the Constitutio was issued; and this must be the one he
was required to swear by the Ludovicianum of 817 (so, e.g. Bertolini
1956:53ff) - a confirmation of the alliance with the Franks such as
previous popes had made on various occasions (though not at the time
of their election) since 757. The only innovation was that the oath be
sworn before ordination and in the presence of the envoy, to remind the
pope of his reciprocal obligations with the Franks (Noble, 317-18).

There was now, however, an oath which all Romans, apart from the
pope, were to take. We know of it not from the MSS of the Constitutio
itself, but from the Continuatio Romana of Paul the Deacon’s History
of the Lombards {anno 825, MGH SSrL 203).

‘In the name of almighty God, on these holy Gospels and on this Cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and on the body of the blessed Peter prince of the apostles, 1 promise that
from this day until my death I will be faithful to our lords the emperors Louis and
Lothar with all my strength without fraud or evil craftiness, saving the faith promised
to our lord the pope. I will prevent with all my power and understanding any election
of a pontiff to the see of Rome taking place other than in conformity with canon law
and justice, and I will not consent to the consecration of the one elected until he takes

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the oath in public and in the presence of our lord’s delegate, with the oath that lord

pope Eugene for the safety of everyone freely put in writing’.

The crucial problem about the two oaths is how far they
acknowledged imperial sovereignty and, by changing the status of the
pope and his subjects, compromised the existence of the papal state.
Traditionally the arrangements of 824 have been seen (except by those
who dismiss the oath as a later imperial forgery) as marking ‘a
revolution in Franco-papal relations’ (Halphen), and ‘the high point of
Frankish control of the papacy’ (Kelly). Unlike the oath sworn by the
pope, that sworn by the Romans certainly begins as that of a Frankish
subject. This was new, but it was not an acceptance of imperial
sovereignty since, as Noble has shown, there is a ‘safeguard’ by which
the Romans owed allegiance to the pope first, and only then to the
emperor. The reciprocal friendship between the Franks and Romans had
since 754 required the Franks to protect the Romans; but it was
increasingly protection from each other that they most needed; and
Frankish investigations into happenings at Rome were liable to be
stalled by papal oaths of purgation. The solution of Louis and Lothar
was, indeed, to have the Romans swear the oath of Frankish subjects.
But this oath did not require obedience, merely a limited allegiance and
an abstention from open disloyalty. Yet a Roman breaking the oath
could now be brought to book in a way which had been difficult when
the constitutional arrangement was that of an alliance between both
sides, as it had been during troubles under Leo III and Paschal. ‘The
Constitutio oath was neither more nor less than an efficacious protection
device for the pope and for St Peter’s people’ (Noble, 317-320). In a
nutshell, the papal state retained its constitutional autonomy vis-^-vis the
empire but its subjects were now, as Noble puts it, ‘justiciable’ before
the emperor; he notes that there had been some precedent at Ravenna
for such a ‘regime of vaguely concurrent powers’.

Noble concludes (321-2) that the Constitutio was deeply conservative.
The permanent imperial envoy in Rome formed a slightly stronger bond
between the state and the empire, and justice at Rome was supposed to
improve. But there was no change from the spirit of the Franco-papal
alliance since 754 and the Ludovicianum of 817. The Constitutio
guaranteed the Romans protection not merely against foreign foes, as
Stephen II had wanted in 754, but against each other, which was what
Eugene wanted now.

Another fault in the LP life of Eugene is the lack of any reference to
iconoclasm, an issue which at this point concerned not merely the pope
but the emperors in both east and west. Leo V’s policy had already
caused Paschal concern. In 824 the next emperors Michael II and
Theophilus sent an embassy to Louis, which reached him at Rouen on

101. EUGENE II

17 November; the purpose was to get his help for an approach to Rome
(cf. ARF 824 Scholz 116). Michael claimed that the cult of images led
to abuses, and knew that the Franks held images to be permissible but
not to be for adoration; he wanted Louis to persuade Eugene to prohibit
veneration. Louis cooperated, and still in 824 he sent envoys, including
Freculf bishop of Lisieux, to Rome to persuade Eugene to compromise.
But Eugene stoutly maintained that, even if the Franks did not accept
it, the question had been dogmatically settled by the second council of
Nicaea in 787 (cf. LP 97:88): images must not be adored, but must be
venerated. So this first Frankish embassy failed, but Louis persevered
and was at length able to get Eugene’s agreement (Mansi 15, append,
p. 337, PL 98.1347, 104.1317 etc.) that the clergy of his own and
Lothar’s kingdom should gather statements from the works of the
Fathers which would help produce a satisfactory definition when the
Greek envoys returned to consult him. Louis’s theological syond met at
Paris on 1 November 825 (acts in Mansi 14.463, PL 98.1299-1350,
MGH Cone 2.473-551), reported against the Council of 787 (images
were not to be destroyed but were not to be venerated) and lambasted
Eugene for protecting error and superstition. In Eugene’s name they
prepared a letter to Michael and Theophilus (J2561). Louis and Lothar
sent a new embassy (Jeremias archbishop of Sens and Jonas bishop of
Orleans) to tell Eugene of the decision and take him the letter for
signing and forwarding by them to Constantinople; and perhaps papal
envoys should come with them. But Louis already saw that Eugene
would not abandon the Council of 787 {MGH Cone 2.533). The
iconodule Theodore of Studios had already received support from
Paschal which he valued highly, and Eugene had by now made contact
with him; and, like Paschal, Eugene had received eastern refugees from
iconoclasm. Jeremias and Jonas could not shift Eugene: no letters or
envoys went east from Rome. It may have been the papal embassy
which reached Ingelheim in the summer of 826 (Leo bishop of
Centumcellae, Theophylact the nomenclator, and Dominic abbot of
Mount Olivet from beyond the seas; ARF 826 Scholz 119), that told
Louis of Eugene’s refusal. Louis took the matter no further, whether
from respect for a decision by the pope or because he saw no point in
upsetting the political balance recently achieved at Rome merely to
please Constantinople.

Eugene held a synod of 62 bishops, 17 priests and 6 deacons, in St
Peter’s on 14-15 November 826 (MGH Cone 2.552-583; Mansi 14.999).
The 38 reforming canons are wide-ranging, and were applied to the
Frankish kingdom as well as Rome: they condemn simony, encourage
clerical education, deal with the bishops’ qualifications (they are not to

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

be consecrated unless asked for by clergy and people), and their duties
and revenues (they are not to be absent too long from their churches,
not to take the lands of their subjects or church property for their own
use, not to dismiss their clergy). They deal too with the number,
conduct and duties of priests: the assent of the faithful is required for
ordination. Arrangements are made for church buildings and institutions;
in accordance with Frankish practice, a proprietor who builds a church
is not to lose control of it involuntarily. The discipline of abbots, monks
and nuns, is then considered, along with the problem of those forced to
become monks unwillingly. Sunday observance is stressed; feast days
are not to be violated with dancing, dirty songs and choruses. The laity
are not to be present in the chancel during the liturgy. Teachers are to
be established for the study of letters and the liberal arts. And questions
of divorce, bigamy and illicit marriages are considered.

A text preserved independently by cardinal Deusdedit shows that the
council also ratified the rules dealing with papal elections. On the
council see also the notes to 105:90-92, Leo IV’s council of 8 December
853 which largely repeated the enactments of that held by Eugene.

101. EUGENE II

101. 1. EUGENE [II; 21 February 1 824 - .. August 827]. He 2 was a
venerable and distinguished man of great sincerity and humility,
instructed in learning, distinguished in speech, fair of form, and
generous to those with requests. Rejecting the world, he thought day and
night on those things alone which were pleasing to Christ. In the time
of this pontiff no small abundance fell not only on the whole of Rome
but also on nearly all of the world; for he unremittingly assigned to
everyone, not only to orphans and widows but even to the rich,
whatever he reckoned was a just burden for his subjects. 2. In his days
there was great peace and stillness throughout the whole Roman world;
for since he was the friend of all peace, what else were they about if
they too did not themselves do what he with his honourable character
was doing? He was the archpriest of this holy and universal church; in
which for no small time he ruled his assignment wonderfully.
Afterwards, elected by all 3 the Romans thanks to the godly report of his
merits, he was made pontiff after holy lord pope Paschal passed away.
3. In the time of his priesthood he held St Sabina the martyr’s church
on the Aventine Hill; by God’s dispensation, after the grace of the
pontificate was granted him, he brought it to a higher standard and
decorated it all round with pictures. 4

1 For this date see MS Vat. Lat. 645 fol. 6r, a 9th-century calendar (photograph in NCE
5.625): XIIII kl <Martias> Sol in Pisces. Paschalis papa obiit et Eugenius successit....
V1I11 kl. Eugenius prbr . tit . see. Savine apostolicus ordinatus est; 21 February was a
Sunday in 824, as required for episcopal ordinations. The LP (in MS D) gives no
chronological data for Eugene; MSS CE add ‘held the see 4 years’, to which E adds: ‘2
months 23 days’. The Montecassino Catalogue gives Eugene 3 years 7 months 22 days.
Since his death was in August 827 (see p. 41), perhaps read 3 years 5 months 22 days,
and suppose that he died about 12 August 827; Valentine’s 40 days can then be from, say,
Sunday 19 August 827 to 28 September. Baronius’s dates in 824 (15 May for Paschal’s
death, 18 June for Eugene’s accession) and in 827 (11 August both for Eugene’s death
and for Valentine’s accession) rest on no good authority. The old view (JaffS 1885:320,
retained e.g. by Noble, 316, and by Kelly, 101) was that Eugene was not elected and
consecrated until early June 824. This was based on 1) the length of Eugene’s pontificate
as given in MS E, emended and printed in the text of Vignoli’s edition as ‘3 years 2
months 23 days’; 2) Eugene died in August 827; 3) the news of Eugene’s election reached
Comptegne before about 24 June 824; and 4) a synod held at Mantua on 6 June 827 is
dated as in Eugene’s fourth year, Mansi 14.493. The newly established date satisfies all
these conditions if MS E is differently emended.

2 MSS CE insert the usual formula ‘of Roman origin son of (with no name). His father’s
name is given as Bonemund (i.e. Bohemund) in an insertion in one MS of the LP’s ‘third
edition’.

3 Untrue if it means that the election was unanimous; but it may refer merely to the
involvement of the laity as well as the clergy; see p. 31.

4 None of Eugene’s work at S. Sabina now survives, though the mosaics of the apse-arch
escaped Sixtus V’s restorations long enough to be published by Ciampini (Vetera

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

In his days the Roman judges who were held captive in France
returned; 5 he allowed them to enter onto their parents’ property and
gave them no small amount from the Lateran patriarchate, because they
were destitute of almost all their revenues.

In the same church of St Sabina the martyr he provided a fine silver
canopy weighing .. lb. 6 There too this venerable prelate presented. 7

Monumenta (1690) 1.188 pi. 47; Krautheimer, Corpus 4.75), who stated that traces of
Eugene’s pictures could still be seen on the epistyles of the columns. The design consisted
of a series of medallions arranged in a semicircle round the curvature of the arch. On top
was the Saviour; on each side the busts of 7 (originally 8) men; and the two mystical
cities, Jerusalem and Bethlehem. De Rossi noticed the close resemblance of this design
to that in St Zeno’s oratory at S. Prassede, and the likelihood that the work was done by
the same mosaicists. An obstacle is the word picturis in this life; the LP, especially in the
9th century, distinguishes paintings and mosaics; the latter are musivum, a word not
appearing in this life. Yet in this scrap of a life there is no reason to expect the LP’s
normal standards of accuracy; so Duchesne attributed the mosaic to Eugene, and
Krautheimer seems to accept this.

5 For the context and significance of this see the introduction to this life and to 100. ARF
and Astronomer do not mention exiles and attribute the restoration of property to Lothar,
not Eugene. Relevant is the first chapter of the Constitutio of 824, referring to abuses of
the judicial system, and showing concern about the property of the widows and orphans
of those killed.

6 Darsy 1961:29 wrongly cites ‘102 lb’ as from Duchesne’s text at this point.

7 The text breaks off leaving the rest of Eugene’s gifts unrecorded. This is the last literary
reference to S. Sabina’s until 1222; Eugene’s changes and decorations (on which, Darsy
1961:29; Krautheimer, Corpus 4.75) are the only ones recorded or suspected before the
13th century. The iconostasis, some five metres forward from the presbyterium, consisted
of columns surmounted by a high stone frieze. The gifts included a bronze gate or railings
which in the 16th century still enclosed the choir; Pompeio Ugonio (Historia delle stazioni
di Roma, 1588), c. 10, read on them (‘in large letters’) the inscription Eugenius Secundus
Papa Romanus. Another inscription in 4 couplets is still visible at the end of the right
aisle: it mentions a pope Eugene who brought to S. Sabina’s the bodies of SS Alexander
(identified as the 2nd-century pope), Theodulus and Eventius, and placed them close to
Sabina and Seraphia in the building which Peter the priest had provided in the time of
pope Caelestinus. The verses are leonine, so the inscription is likely to be of the 10th or
11th century, though no doubt Eugene II is referred to (Krautheimer; Berthier 1910:289;
photograph in Darsy, 113, fig. 29). Sabina, really the foundress of the titulus, was first
regarded as a saint from the end of the fifth century, and the legend of her martyrdom (Aa
SS Augusti VI.496-504) will be later still. Seraphia (Amore 1975:305) is supposed to have
been the person who converted Sabina to Christianity; when Sabina was martyred she was
buried on 29 August ‘in the town of the Vendinenses’ (a village near Terni) ‘at the arch
of Faustinus’, where Seraphia was already buried. In 1586-7 the revetment of the apse-
wall was reused to pave the apse; the 9th-century chancel enclosure (plaques, inscribed
bronze doors, colonnettes and architrave) was dismantled, as was the old altar supported
by four columns in the apse (Krautheimer, Corpus 4.98).

102. VALENTINE (827).

Next to nothing is known from outside the LP about Valentine or any

action he performed during his ephemeral pontificate. ARF 827 offers:

‘Pope Eugene died in August, in whose place the deacon Valentine was elected and

ordained by the Romans; he completed barely one month in the pontificate.’

To this the other annals have nothing to add. From the LP we infer that
he was of upper-class family (n. 2); his advance from the subdiaconate
(he was ordained by Paschal) to the papacy in ten years at the outside
suggests that he was both privileged and youthful. Unanimity is claimed
for his election (c. 6); the electorate included the laity (and specifically
the dignitaries), a requirement reiterated (from the Ludovicianum of
817) in Lothar’s Constitutio of 824, and ratified at Eugene’s Council of
November 826. There is no reference to Valentine taking the oath
required, but he cannot have failed to fulfil that part of the
arrangements; the lack of delay before ordination suggests that the
imperial envoy was available at Rome.

The life is composed in an attempt at high style, and the praise for
the pope’s virtues sounds vapid. Its greatest interest is what it shows
about the composition of the LP. A full-scale account of the pope’s
character, career and ordination was produced at an early moment after
he became pope, and tacked on to the incomplete life of Eugene; the
compiler clearly had no knowledge that the new pontificate would last
a mere 40 days.

102. 1. VALENTINE [about September 827], of Roman origin, son
of Leontius, 1 from the region Via Lata, 2 held the see 40 days. He was
a man filled with great holiness and blessedness, and continued
overflowing with the grace of the Holy Ghost. He was bom of
aristocratic and godly parents in this city of Rome (which by God’s
authority holds the dignity of the highest sacerdotal office and of royal
supremacy), and was handed over to an expert master for elementary
studies; then he explored the sacred pinnacles of God’s law with fully
capacious sensibility and retained them in the memory with which he
was endowed. In the manner of the nobility he avoided the vain and
shameful games of children; his mouth uttered no inappropriate or
unsuitable stories, and he engaged in no forbidden works and activities.
2. Instead, from the earliest flowering of childhood he was given to

1 Son of Peter in MS E (and later versions).

2 See 97:1 and n. 1. This implies that Valentine was of upper-class family.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

godly modesty and sobriety, and, full of the distinguished nectar of
God’s inspiration, he kept his lips embellished with the trappings of
speech and wisdom among all men. With his particular plentifulness of
vocabulary and with the resplendent merits of his works, he displayed
the elegant mind in his breast, particularly when he presented himself
in triumph and affection to all men ‘without offence’, to use the fine
words of the teacher of the gentiles; 3 for, putting a stumbling-block or
hindrance in no one’s way, 4 he took care with steadfast mind to expend
the due of perfect love on his neighbours; and according to the precept
spoken by the Lord, he kept his loins girded with chastity and his lamps
burning in his hands, 5 that is to say, he shone splendidly in word and
deed and was resplendent in the task of teaching through the
magnificent token of his praiseworthy example.

3. Aided by the power of God on high, when he had already entered
on adulthood, the favour of his goodness and shrewdness was wafted far
and wide like sweet-smelling incense, and by the true-spoken account
of the faithful it rang loud and clear in the ears of lord Paschal; and
when this blessed prelate of godly memory had truly learnt from the
people’s uniting in his praise that he would be illustrious and
distinguished in all things, he advanced him through the ecclesiastical
grades to the office of the subdiaconate, and bade him be at his service
in the Lateran Palace. And recognizing his life and manner of behaviour
and patience, he greatly loved him beyond others. And by the favour of
the grace of God from above, to whom he had vowed himself with total
devotion of mind and his whole power, this man shone full of the light
of truth and wisdom. He was affable in word, lucid in teaching, and
conspicuous in countenance; among his brethren he was modest with
godly devotion; to his neighbours he was loyal; and relying on his
shrewd understanding he embroiled himself in no dealings whereby
anyone might, however trivially, be saddened. 4. Moreover when that
pontiff observed that he was elegant and was adorned with so many
good things, with works of such great merit and with a noteworthy
physical presence, he consecrated him as a deacon of his apostolic see.
On account of his merit, wherewith he gleamed brightly and was held
in affection and love by all the people of the church and the
distinguished assembly of the Romans, he bounteously conferred many
gifts and benefits on him, and afterwards made him archdeacon. 6 Now

3 I Cor. 10.32.

4 Rom. 14.13.

5 Luke 12.35.

6 This is important, as it implies (unless the mortality of the other deacons was unusually

102. VALENTINE

when this prelate at Christ’s bidding climbed to the heights of heaven,
Eugene was raised up by all 7 to the pontifical office and set in the
apostolic see. He recognized that he was splendidly adorned with all the
good things we have mentioned, and all the time he lived he retained
him in the place of his dearly beloved; with a keen heart he rejoiced
like a father in his own son, and yearned for him to stand unceasingly
in his sight.

5. But when the term of this prelate’s transient light was
accomplished and divinely completed, the whole assembly 8 of the
Romans besought the Lord with frequent fasting and prayer about the
rule of the pinnacles of the holy see, that he might see fit to reveal to
their senses who was worthy of the office of so great a see. But when
God’s majesty was placated, who was it among the sacerdotal catalogue
that he should manifest to them by the arcane will of his power for
election, but him whom he had adorned from his mother’s breast with
so many above-mentioned abundances of virtues and with most beautiful
flowering of teaching? and whom should he grant as ruler of the most
holy see but him whom he had groomed as a pupil to be entirely
constant and faithful to him? 6. So when the venerable bishops and
glorious dignitaries of the Romans and all the people 9 of the widespread
City were gathered together in the Lateran Palace, so that they might
resound with the single voice of many men what all in their hearts held
equally as already revealed from heaven, with the consent of one will 10
there was a loud acclamation: ‘Valentine the most holy archdeacon is
worthy of the apostolic see! Valentine must be adorned with the badge
of the supreme pontificate!’ So this was uttered in unison, and then, all
of them remaining in peaceful harmony, the sacred [gathering] 11 of the
clergy and the dignitaries of the Romans with the people as well hurried
to the church of God’s holy mother the ever-virgin Mary our lady, and
found him rendering in his usual manner manifold thanks and praises to
the Lord. And straightaway, though he much and long resisted and
proclaimed with steadfast voice that he would be unsuited to so great a
rule, he was elected by the joyful voices of the beloved people and of

quick) that the archidiaconate was held by direct appointment and not simply by the
deacon who was senior by date of ordination; cf. ‘archpriest’ at 104:4.

7 See 101: n. 3, and p. 31.

8 Specified in c. 6 to include the laity; cf. introduction to the life.

9 Cf. ibid.

10 That there was unanimity may be true here, even if the LP’s twice repeated claim
about the election of 824 is false.

11 After sacer supply some such noun as coetus .

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

both the militias of the Romans; 12 then with praises worthy of his glory
and with the fullness of honour they took him to the Lateran
patriarchate and set him on the pontifical throne. 7. His feet were
triumphantly kissed by all the senate 13 of the Romans, everything which
needed doing was lawfully and reverently carried out, and great was the
sobriety, great the joy that endured among men and women of all ages.

And when light dawned on the fair day of his consecration, all the
Romans together brought this bishop from the palace to the church of
St Peter prince of the apostles, and with the aid of the Majesty
enthroned on high they consecrated him supreme pontiff. 8. Then he
ascended the pinnacles of the bountiful see of St Peter, the apostle and
the keybearer of the heavenly kingdom; divine praises and sacrifices
were piously offered to God, and he returned to the palace with the full
and magnificent assembly of the Romans with enormous joy. He
splendidly enriched the holy people 14 and the senate and people of Rome
with many and various gifts and very loving presents, with the most
joyous stewardry and outlay. 15

He was noteworthy for his stewardry, distinguished for his activity,
clear in speech, a neighbour to all in showing pity, and instantly
provided timely comfort for those enduring want.

Adorned for heaven with these manifold good things, when Christ
called, he was oppressed by bodily trouble and passed away with a
precious departure. 16 With the desirable fruit of his most blessed work
he joyously went up into the sight of the supreme Majesty, and he
reigns and rejoices with the Lord for ever.

12 The meaning seems to be clergy (as militia Christi) and laity (the scholae).

n There is of course no reason to suppose that the Roman senate still existed; the term
is a literary variant to describe leading members of the Roman nobility; cf. Toubert
1973:965-6.

14 The sacra plebs is the clergy. At one time it would have meant the laity: cf. nos servi
tui sed et plebs tua sancta in the Canon of the Roman mass. It equally clearly means the
clergy at 104:19 and 105:12.

15 Such is the meaning of this expression ( dapibus, sumptis) at 97:92; but in the context
of the ordination ceremonies of a pope the reference may be more specifically to a
banquet.

16 Ps. 115 (116.15); ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints’.

103. GREGORY IV (828-844).

The compiler treats (cc. 1-4) of Gregory’s early career and election,
but then abandons all political history in favour of heavily abridged
versions of the registers on buildings and enrichment of churches. The
only exception - apparent rather than real, as it does concern building -
is the account in cc. 38-40 of the rebuilding of Ostia as
‘Gregoriopolis’. A powerful fortress was needed to defend Rome and
central Italy from the threat posed by the Saracens, who had landed in
Sicily in 827 (see n. 89).

This reflects perhaps the methodology of the compiler rather than any
deliberate attempt to suppress the none too successful policies of
Gregory. And it is true that at Rome Gregory’s pontificate did see much
money spent on building and decorating churches; in the apse-mosaic at
S. Marco, constructed in 829-831, Gregory’s portrait in mosaic survives
(photograph in NCE 6. 771). His other works included the rebuilding of
the ruined Sabbatina aqueduct (c. 19), whose water was needed to
operate the mills on the Janiculum.

Gregory’s ordination was delayed until the imperial envoy was
present and the oath now required could be taken before him (cf. nn. 1,
11), and the link with the Carolingians remained firm as long as that
family remained united. Thus about April 828 Gregory sent envoys, the
primicerius

Quirinus and nomenclator Theophylact, to Louis (ARF 828;
Astronomer, Vita Hludovici Pii 42). But the relationship was not
necessarily to Rome’s advantage: envoys from Louis (bishop Joseph and
count Leo) came to Rome in January 829, and at the Lateran in
Gregory’s presence they delivered a judgment about property rights in
favour of the abbey of Farfa and against the Roman church ( Regesto di
Farfa 2.221; Paschal had granted this abbey a tax-exempt status on 1
February 817, ibid. 2.186); if Gregory appealed to the emperors he was
unsuccessful.

But there ensued dynastic strife between Louis and his sons Lothar,
Pepin and Louis the German, which served to loosen the bonds tying
Rome to the empire. The sons first revolted in 830: the empress Judith
was placed in a convent at Poitiers. The pope and other bishops required
Louis to take her back, and a council at Aachen on 2 February 831 did
restore Judith to him (Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris 37).

In 833 the three sons again rebelled; Lothar was to supplant his father
as emperor. And, as many saw it, the rebels managed to win Gregory
to their side: his authority would certainly have been seen as bolstering

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

their plans, in effect as legitimizing Lothar’s rebellion (the importance
of Gregory’s role is controversial; cf Ganz 1990:546-7; Fried 1990:267-
73). Gregory at least claimed that his involvement was in the interests
of peace (Tliegan, 42), and intended to help restore the unity of the
empire and preserve the original agreement about the succession.

Gregory came with Lothar across the Pennine Alps into France. He
wrote from Lothar’s camp about Easter 833 to archbishop Agobard of
Lyons and abbot Wala of Corbie to help him bring concord to the
imperial family. Agobard was asked to fast and pray God for the
success of Gregory’s efforts to obtain from Louis peace and harmony
in the imperial family and realm. Wala was adjured to come to the
pope’s assistance for the achievement of reconciliation between Louis
and his sons and nobility, for the unity of the people and for the safety
of the empire. But since Louis’s supporters looked on Gregory’s
intervention as partisan, they and the Frankish bishops loyal to Louis
received him with open hostility, and threatened him with
excommunication if he did not keep his oath to Louis.

Gregory was startled at this, but was very much encouraged by the
responses of Agobard and Wala, who sent him earlier papal and patristic
writings dealing with the authority the pope had from God and St Peter
to spread truth and the gospel, to secure the peace of the churches in
order to do this, and reassuring him that as successor of Peter he could
be judged by no one. The reluctance of the imperial bishops to meet
him Gregory regarded as insolence; he lambasted his critics, scorned
their threats, attacked them for attempting to block his embassy of
peace, and justified his involvement with the arguments advanced by
Wala: as successor of St Peter he had the care of all men’s souls, and
it was therefore his concern to encourage peace and unity in an empire
over which he had superior authority (MGH Ep 5.228-232).

From Worms, Louis sent envoys to Gregory in May or June, to ask
why he was avoiding meeting him, if he was really present in pursuance
of the precedents his predecessors had set. In June Louis and all his
forces confronted his three sons with their immense army. The two sides
set up opposing camps in Alsace northwest of Colmar at Rotfeld (called,
according to a gloss in one MS of AB , Nelson 26 n. 1, the Campus
Mentitus, ‘Field of Lies’; now Sigolsheim). Gregory with his entire
Roman entourage was in the sons’ camp. On 24 June with battle about
to be joined, the sons persuaded Gregory to go to negotiate with their
father. Louis received Gregory that day. The pope made it very clear
that he had undertaken such a long journey only because it was said that
Louis’s discord with his sons was irremediable, and he wanted to sow
peace on both sides. For some days he stayed with Louis who then sent

103. GREGORY IV

him to his sons to construct a mutual peace. But in the meantime Lothar
and his brothers made use of bribery to bring about defections from
Louis, and on the night of his return Gregory found Lothar had tricked
him. Most of Louis’s supporters had deserted; and Gregory was
prevented from fulfilling Louis’s orders to return to him. On 30 June
Louis had to surrender unconditionally, and was deposed. His wife was
taken from him and sent into exile in Lombardy, while Louis and his
son Charles were kept under close guard. Gregory had to acquiesce in
Lothar’s treacherous seizure of power, and Lothar allowed him to return
to Rome. He made the journey in July, slower than he would have
wished, in great pain, and without the honour that was his due. He must
have regretted his involvement (Thegan, 42; Astronomer, 48; Annales
Xantenses 833; AB 833 Nelson 26-7; Paschasius Radbertus, Vita Walae
2.14-18; Nithard, Hist 1.4 Scholz 133).

On 1 March 834 Louis was restored as emperor. Lothar meanwhile
occupied himself with harassing church property in Italy, and Louis, to
make his peace with the pope, censured his son and in 837 sent his
legate, abbot Adrebald, to Rome for consultations: Louis’s stated object
was to make a pilgrimage to Rome, but he really wanted to detach
Gregory from Lothar. Adrebald arrived to find Gregory ill, but the pope
leapt at the chance of rapprochement and despatched an embassy (Peter
bishop of Centumcellae and bishop George, regionarius of Rome) to
return with Adrebald and a letter to express his gratitude to Louis. At
Bologna the embassy was intercepted by Lothar, but Gregory’s letters
to Louis were got through secretly (Astronomer, 55-56).

After Louis’s death on 20 June 840, his sons could not remain in
harmony, and Gregory tried, rather more circumspectly than in 833, to
achieve peace between Lothar and his brothers. He sent George
archbishop of Ravenna as his legate to negotiate; but Lothar detained
George and would not let him continue his mission. The bloody conflict
at Fontenoy ensued on 25 June 841, in which Lothar was defeated by
Charles and Louis. George was taken prisoner in the battle and then sent
home with due honour. Gregory’s efforts for peace had been ineffectual
{AB 841 Nelson 50; Agnellus, Lib. pont. Raven, (cc. 173, 175, pp. 389-
391) is less sympathetic to George’s actions).

Continuing the interest shown by Paschal and Eugene II, in 831/2
Gregory received Anskar who since 826 had been evangelizing Denmark
and had now been consecrated bishop of Hamburg by Drogo of Metz.
On the petition of Ratold bishop of Soissons, Bemold bishop of
Strasbourg and count Gerold, Gregory gave Anskar the pallium as
archbishop (‘of the Nordalbingi’). To him and his successor archbishops
Gregory granted the office of legate and papal representative, and the

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

authority to evangelize among the nations of

‘Dani, Sueoni, Norvehi, Farrie, Gronlondan, Halsingalondan, Islandan, Scridevindun,
the Slavs, and all northern and eastern nations however named.’

Until there were enough native bishops the emperor should arrange for
the consecration of Anskar’s successors (J2574; Curschmann 1909:13-
15 ).

Significant of the times is the willingness of the Franks to ensure the
greater Romanization of their liturgy; significant too is Gregory’s
cooperation with this. In 831 Gregory received Amalarius of Metz and
assigned him to the archdeacon for advice on Roman usages (Amalarius,
De ordine antiphonarii , prologue). In 835 it was on Gregory’s
encouragement that Louis extended the observance of All Saints day to
all the Frankish realms ( Chron. Sigeberti 835, PL 160.159).

Remarkably little else is recorded of Gregory’s pontificate. For the
years 838-840 Jaffd gave only two spurious documents, and for 835-6
and 842-3 nothing at all. No doubt this is largely because of the
deficiency of the sources. But the pain Gregory was in while returning
to Rome in 833, and the fact that he was ill in 837 yet lived on seven
years, may suggest that he was unable to be very active. Hrabanus,
abbot of Fulda (later archbishop of Mainz) sent to Rome a poem which
he dedicated to Gregory {PL 107.133-294; cf. AF 844 Reuter 23); but
when it arrived in 844 the pope was dead.

The author of this life can produce abysmal Latin (cf. particularly cc.
25-27). A stylistic quirk of his is the word indifferenter (four times in
this life, cc. 23, 35, 38, 40: ‘indiscriminately’ or ‘without distinction’;
it is not previously used in the LP, though it recurs at 105:39 and
108:20). The author even produces the word indiffluenter (c. 19), unique
in the LP.

103. GREGORY IV

103. 1. GREGORY [IV; 29 March' 828 to early 844], 1 2 of Roman
origin, son of John, held the see 16 years .. months .. days. A man of
stamina, he was kind, filled with holiness and piety, adorned with
knowledge, felicitous in expression, modest, beyond all men steadfast
to his word, catholic in faith, righteous in works, and a most expert
searcher of divine writings. A tireless visitor of holy churches, a father
to the poor and a sustainer of all widows, he sought nothing of this
earth, was desirous of nothing that passes away, and, abandoning the
worldly gains of this present life, by his worthy deserts he gained
himself everlasting rewards in heaven.

2. This blessed pontiff was of noteworthy birth 3 but more noteworthy
holiness, fair of form, fairer in faith. All these proclamations of praise
did not shine only in the time of his pontificate, but even when he was
still in the vigour of youthful years he was always unfailingly busy at
doing such things. This did not long continue hidden from all the
Romans, as it is written: ‘No one after lighting a lamp puts it under a
bushel, but that it gives light to all in the house’ 4 , his holy activity from
day to day began fully to resound through the whole city of Rome, as
the word of the gospel teaches: ‘Nothing is covered that may not be
revealed or hidden that may not be known’ 5 . Thanks to these countless
good things, pope Paschal, the holy lord of this sacred see, made him
not only subdeacon but also sacerdos . 6 3. Established in the habit of his

1 For the delay between his election, presumably in 827, and his ordination see n. 11. The
date, 29 March (Palm Sunday in that year), for the latter event (accepted by Kelly) is cited
in Duchesne 111 from the ‘Ottobonian Martyrology’. But note that the Tallaght
Martyrology has on 29 March: ordinatio Grigorii Nazareni in Armenia, where Gregory
of Nazianzus is evidently meant. Delehaye (Mart. Hieron., 166) did not know the origin
of this entry. The MS of Tallaght is the ‘Book of Leinster’, written after the middle of the
12th century but containing a compilation probably of the early 9th century (Delehaye,
op. cit ., xii). Gregory of Nazianzus was ordained priest at Christmas 361, as the first
bishop of Sasima on an unknown day in 372, and was elected to Constantinople in May
381. Right or wrong, 29 March may refer to this Gregory’s ordination to Sasima and have
nothing to do with Gregory IV. ARF ', even though it is the source for the delay of the
ordination until the imperial legate had approved the election, might be taken to imply that
the ordination was in 827.

2 The precise dates of Gregory’s death and of his successor’s ordination are nowhere
recorded; 25 January 844 often given for the former is a guess; AF Reuter 22 even gives
the year as 843. The round 16 years for Gregory’s tenure, and the uncertainty about the
date of his ordination (last note), make the precise date unascertainable.

3 He was aristocratic, and was the candidate of the lay nobility who from 817 took part
in papal elections.

4 Luke 11.33 mixed with Matthew 5.15.

5 Matthew 10.26, where (even in the Vulgate) the two verbs are in the future tense.

6 His titular church was S. Marco, in the aristocratic quarter, cf. c. 8 and n. 17.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

sacerdotal office he continued in chastity and purity, recalling what holy
Scripture brings to mind with the words: ‘My sacerdotes are to devote
themselves to nothing other than prayer, reading and fasting.’ 7 And
while he was concentrating intently on these things, the same lord
pontiff Paschal was in the way of mankind taken from this life and
Eugene the God-elected bishop gained the dignity of the high pinnacle,
continuing therein a short time. After him Valentine was allotted the
pinnacle of the prelacy to feed the flocks, 8 but was most speedily taken
from this present life.

4 . Then the Romans all began to think closely not only on the
pontiffs so suddenly lost but also on the next one, and how they could
recognize one who was bathed in the grace of the Holy Ghost, under
whose teaching and rule the whole nobility of the senators could
lawfully live. ‘The stronghold in time of trouble’ 9 , God the creator of
all, enflamed the hearts of all these dignitaries with his holy
unquenchable light and turned their minds to the godly deeds of blessed
pope Gregory IV; and they all agreed with single mind and heart.
Elected by them he was conducted to the Lateran patriarchate - they
having forcibly removed him from SS Cosmas and Damian the martyrs’
basilica, 10 for he was protesting his unsuitability for such a ministry. But
as he could not resist such a great multitude, they led him to the said
place with hymns and spiritual chants. 11

5. Now since we cannot in a speedy account trace everything he did,
we should albeit briefly bring to the notice of all what he

7 The quotation is not scriptural. The old editors therefore read: Sacerdotes [mei
induantur iustitiam, hoc est',] non in aliis ...» to produce a quotation from Psalm 131
(132).9: ‘Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness...’. But cf. similar words in the LP
life of St Peter, 1:5 (BP 2), in a speech attributed to the apostle; this could have been
regarded as quasi-scriptural, especially by continuators of the LP.

8 No doubt an allusion to John 21.15-17.

<J Psalm 9.10.

10 This was not his titular church, which was S. Marco (see n. 17). Was he somehow
assigned to SS Cosmas and Damian’s? Not being a titular church this must have had
special arrangements for its services; it is usually assumed clergy would be sent there from
the Lateran as required; yet S. Marco is considerably closer. But if so it is surprising that
this basilica received only one small gift from him as pope (c. 12).

11 The author stops at the election; Gregory’s ordination is merely alluded to in passing
in c. 5 (cf. n. 1 above). ARF 827: ‘When (Valentine) was dead, Gregory priest of St
Mark’s titulus was elected, but was not ordained until the emperor’s legate came to Rome
and examined the people’s election, what kind of man he was.’ Gregory will have been
required by the Constitutio of 824 to take an oath as Eugene II had done, before the
emperor’s envoy and the people (see introduction to life 101). For Gregory’s oath, Noble,
315, cites, apart from ARF 827, Astronomer, Vita Hlodowici 44, Benedict, Chronicon (ed.
Zucchetti, 144). In Noble’s view a later letter of Gregory refers to his having sworn an
oath ( apud Agobard, Ep. 17, MGH Ep 5.230).

103. GREGORY IV

wholeheartedly and in godly devotion presented to the sacred and
venerable places.

[A.D. 828:]

After his election and consecration 12 to the prelacy he began to
employ the greatest endeavour for the saints and their churches, to bring
them back quickly, with the Lord’s protection, to their ancient condition
with a new standard; and this he did. St Satuminus the martyr’s church
outside the Salarian Gate had collapsed to its foundations through its
great age and antiquity; he then began to construct it with new building
and he adorned it with various pictures; there too, he presented 1 gold-
interwoven cloth.

[A.D. 828-9:]

6. After completing what is related above, his pontifical heart then
began to attend earnestly to other works of the saints. As he was
inflamed with the fire of divine love he took the body of St Gregory,
the prelate of this universal church through whom the grace of the Holy
Ghost had imparted a gift of unquenchable wisdom to all the earth, from
the place where it had formerly been buried, and brought it not far from
there to another place newly constructed within St Peter the apostle’s
church, 13 and he decorated his silver altar on all sides with silver panels,
dedicated an oratory to his holy name and depicted his apse above with
gilded mosaic. To this oratory he brought the bodies of the martyrs SS
Sebastian, 14 Gorgonius and Tiburtius 15 from the cemeteries in which they

12 The phraseology neither implies nor excludes the closeness of the two events.

13 St Gregoiy’s tomb had earlier been venerated (cf. 98:35) in its original place in the
exterior portico ante secretarium\ there was an altar near or above it (98:68, 84). Gregory
IV had the sarcophagus brought inside the basilica, ante novellum secretarium as John the
Deacon puts it ( Vita Greg. 4. 80); this was a new chapel built onto St Peter’s with an
entrance from a spot near the eastern end of the southernmost aisle; see Andrieu 1936:61-
101 .

14 Gregory IV put St Sebastian’s head in a silver vessel with feet and a lid, of perhaps
6th-century workmanship, still preserved in the Vatican Museum. At the bottom is
Gregory IV’s inscription in honour of St Sebastian’s head. Reliquary and relic were given
by Leo IV to SS Quattro Coronati, cf. 105: n. 67; Liebaert 1913:479f; Styger 1935:1,139-
148 and plate in vol. II. Sebastian’s body (the rest of it, evidently) had been taken (from
the Catacomb on the Via Appia) to France: ARF 826: ‘Hilduin, abbot of... St Denis, sent
to Rome, and Eugene... consented to his prayers; he received the bones of Christ’s martyr
St Sebastian and placed them in St Medard’s basilica at Soissons’ (there follows an
account of miracles at the Soissons sanctuary). Cf. Ado, Chron. 840 (after mentioning the
death of Louis the Pious): ‘In this emperor’s time part of St Sebastian’s body was taken
to Soissons’. A century later the story of this translation was given with many more
details by Odilo, a monk of St Medard (Mabillon, Acta SS OSB y IV i, p. 383 f)-

15 St Gorgonius’s body had been taken to Metz by bishop Chrodegang in the time of
Pepin the Short. As for St Tiburtius, soon after Gregory’s election in 827 a priest from
Soissons, sent by Hilduin, had tried but failed to take him from his tomb (Einhard,
Translatio SS Marcellini et Petri 8, 10), then four Frankish monks acted for Einhard.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

previously lay and placed each of them in separate altars. 16 7. For them
he decreed in the time of his pontificate that the monks who are
established to perform the office in St Peter the apostle’s church should
not cease to chant praises there to the Lord almighty every day. In the
same oratory he presented 18 silk veils large or small, 3 cloths over the
altar under which the body of pope St Gregory rests, one gold-studded
with a representation; and on each of the altars of those martyrs 1 gold-
interwoven cloth; 3 images silvered on top and swathed in gold,
representing the Lord’s face, and pictures of those whose particular
bodies interred there are distinguished by miracles and mighty works.
[A.D. 829-831:]

8. These works completed, the venerable pontiff immediately turned
heart and mind to others. St Mark the confessor and pontiffs church,
of which he had undertaken the rule in the time of his sacerdotal office
and which had remained in his ius and dicio until he came to the grace
of the pontificate, seemed likely soon to collapse on account of its great
age. With the assistance of the Lord almighty he first removed it to its
foundations and later with new building he brought it all to a better
standard and beauty, 17 and to the delight of all he depicted this basilica’s

They entered St Tiburtius’s basilica (really a kind of annex to that of SS Marcellinus and
Peter) on the via Labicana 3 miles from Rome, and first tried to see if they could open
Tiburtius’s tomb, and then the tombs of Marcellinus and Peter in a crypt contiguous to
that basilica. Three days later they returned to St Tiburtius’s basilica and attempted to
open the altar under which Tiburtius’s body was believed to lie, but their equipment was
inadequate to deal with the solid marble monument. So they removed Marcellinus instead,
and some nights later Peter as well. All this suggests that the basilica was not well
guarded, and the loss of Marcellinus and Peter doubtless inspired Gregory IV to remove
the other two known saints, Gorgonius and Tiburtius, to a safer spot. The relics of the IV
Coronati, originally also in this basilica, were perhaps not known at this time; they were
rediscovered by Leo IV (105:41, though the text does not state that it was here that they
were found).

16 The LP implies three separate altars, but Benedict’s Ordo has only two (other than that
of Gregory): one for Sebastian, one for Tiburtius. De Rossi ( Inscr . II p. 228), no doubt
rightly, thought Gorgonius was kept together with Tiburtius: they both came from the
same cemetery ad duas lauros Via Labicana.

17 Gregory’s rebuilding of his own former titulus produced the third church on the site;
for what follows see Krautheimer, Corpus 2.216-247. Its foundations are immediately on
top of the column-footings of the second church. The original church founded by pope
Mark (LP 35.3-4 BP 27) was burnt down and rebuilt in the 5th or 6th century on the
original foundations, but with the floor about 1 m higher (because of floods?). In 794 this
second church was thought to be the original; Hadrian in a letter to Charlemagne (MGH
Ep 5.49) mentioned it (with those of popes Silvester and Julius) as one of the still
surviving large churches with sacred mosaics and other representations and with images.
The third church is on the same foundations, but 1 !4 m above the floor level of the second
church, so 2'A m above the 4th-century church. The fresh layer of foundation required to
raise the level of the third church was provided by a single layer of ‘Servian’ blocks. The
columns were spoils from the earlier church. The orientation was reversed from that of

103. GREGORY IV

apse with gold colours on the overlaid mosaic. 18 He built all the roofing
anew, and for anything he had previously found in it to be cheap he
substituted what was expensive. 19 9. So with all this finished, for the
remedy and future reward of his soul he presented in this church the
following, to remain to future times: 1 gold crown which with most
excellent jewels hangs to this day over the altar, and has in its centre a
gold cross also with precious jewels; 2 silver chased bowls, hanging
before the same altar; 12 other bowls fashioned with English

the second church, so that the entrance was now at the south, as it had been in the first
church. An annular crypt (discovered in 1843 and well preserved beneath the apse floor)
was built of very poor masonry, but planned at the same time as the apse. A niche below
the altar had (when found; it has now faded) a fresco decoration: the head of Christ on
its back wall, and the lower limbs of two standing figures on the side walls; this niche was
presumably for relics. Substantially it is Gregory’s church which survives today, but the
nave columns were replaced in the 18th century, and the only obvious 9th-century features
are the apse-mosaic with its inscription, the annular crypt, and, on the exterior, the
clerestory walls. In the portico are preserved a few cancelli with 9th-century interlace
patterns, and a small capital, perhaps from an altar canopy, which resembles those
flanking the chapel of St Zeno at S. Prassede, built by Paschal. The apse formerly had
windows, as can be seen in its depiction in the apse-mosaic; the exterior of the apse is
now embedded in the Palazzo Venezia. The foundation walls and clerestory are
characteristic of Carolingian Rome, and the church is another example of the 9th-century
renascence of Early Christian types (S. Anastasia, S. Cecilia, S. Maria Nova, S. Prassede,
SS Nereo e Achilleo, S. Maria in Domnica, S. Martino ai monti).

18 Gregory’s mosaics (with his own portrait; see photograph in, e g., NCE 6.771) still
survive on the triumphal arch and in the apse itself, and are particularly important as the
last known examples of mosaic-work at Rome for nearly three centuries; see Oakeshott
1967:213-216 with plates XXIII, 132, 134-6. They were long regarded as utterly
barbarous (so Duchesne); Oakeshott concedes barbarity only in the lettering that identifies
the figures depicted in the apse, and regards the mosaic as having ‘an austere dignity
which may be found immensely impressive’, the work of an artist who ‘evolved a highly
individual and original style’. The mosaics are very closely related in layout and many
details to those at S. Cecilia a dozen years earlier, yet there is a remarkable change in
range of colour, technique and artistic purpose. The whole colour scheme is of deep
brown, ochre and white; the extensive use of white in much of the clothing of the figures
is remarkable. On the triumphal arch are five roundels with the bust of Christ and the four
symbolic animals from Ezekiel, representing the evangelists, and on the two sides SS
Peter and Paul in white garments. In the apse are seven figures all standing on mats
inscribed with their names. In the middle against a gold background is Christ in a purple
robe (his ‘name’ written as Alpha and Omega), giving a blessing in the Greek style, and
with a book in his left hand showing the words ‘I am the light, I am the life, I am the
resurrection’. On his left are St Mark (with a pallium and a deep red chasuble), SS
Agapitus and Agnes (the latter in a gold dress and holding a martyr’s crown); on his right
are SS Felicissimus and Mark the evangelist; Mark is presenting to Christ pope Gregory
IV (shown with square halo, pallium and gold chasuble, and holding a model of his
basilica). Below Christ is a dove with a halo, perching on the edge of a fountain. In the
lower register is the Lamb of God being approached by the usual troup of sheep, with
Bethlehem and (presumably) Jerusalem depicted at the far ends. Below this is the
dedicatory inscription (ed. Diimmler, MGH Poet. iat. aevi Kar. 2.663 no. 5).

19 Perhaps this implies the use of spoils where possible.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

workmanship; 20 5 other chased bowls with their feet. There too he
presented 3 censers bathed in gold colour; 12 silver canisters; 8 silver
crowns, large and small; 3 silver crosses each of 1 lb; 4 candlesticks
silvered on top. He provided a fine silver canopy to the praise and
honour of the said confessor, weighing 1000 lb. He also decorated his
altar with silver panels. 10. There too, wishing by the practice of
temporal things to obtain the everlasting rewards of heaven, this
venerable pontiff presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth with swords round
it; he provided 1 other dyed purple cloth with eagles. The same prelate
presented 1 dyed purple cloth with jewels and gold apples in the middle
and round it a gold-studded belt. The holy prelate presented a dyed
purple cloth with griffins and unicorns; another cloth with gold-studding
round it, with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ in the middle.
In the same church this venerable pope presented a cloth with griffins
and gold-studding round it, with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ in
the middle; another cloth with gold-studding, with 4 gold-studded
wheels and the birth and baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ in the middle.
11. The same pontiff presented another cloth with lions, with the Lord’s
resurrection in gold-studding; 8 small gold-interwoven cloths which are
placed on the altars reckoned to be around this church; 21 4 white silk
veils, one with tyrian on all sides and a cross and gold-studded chevrons
in the middle, one of cross-adorned silk, with a cross of dyed purple and
chevrons of tyrian in the middle, the third and fourth the same; 4 veils
of rhodian which surround the holy altar, one of which has a gold-
studded cross; 26 gold-interwoven veils and also linen ones which hang
in the church’s arches; 22 alexandrian veils hanging before the great
doors, with men and horses; 1 alexandrian curtain; 4 other veils with
gold-interwoven swords; 1 veil of eightfold weave; 8 other gold-
interwoven veils with a purple fringe around; and 6 other veils with
eagles, with a fringe of tyrian around; 5 other gold-interwoven veils
with lions and a fringe of tyrian; other alexandrian veils, one of them
with wheels and roses in the middle, the other with trees and wheels,
hanging before the doors of this church; a small veil of dyed purple,
with a man and a horse in the middle; 14 Spanish veils with silver; there
too, 10 small veils of dyed purple, each of them with ducks. Protected
by God’s inspiration he presented in the same basilica 1 silver hand-
basin.

20 Read anglorum with D, the best MS, for angelorum printed by Duchesne (which might
imply a design featuring angels); cf. the saxon bowls elsewhere.

21 A clear (the first?) reference to side altars in a titulus.

22 Two sets, perhaps, of 26 for the nave arcades.

103. GREGORY IV

[A.D. 829-830:]

12. In SS Cosmas and Damian the martyrs’ church he provided 1
gold-interwoven cloth representing these saints, with gold-studding in
the middle. In the church of St Abbacyrus and the Archangel ad
ElephantunP he provided another gold-interwoven cloth with a
representation embroidered in the middle, with gold-studding.

[A.D. 830-831:]

This God-elected and distinguished bishop presented in St Eustace the
martyr’s basilica 24 one gold-interwoven cloth with a gold-studded
representation in the middle. The same prelate provided 1 other gold-
interwoven cloth in SS Sergius and Bacchus the martyrs’ church. He
provided another go Id-interwoven cloth in St Silvester’s church on
Mount Soracte. 25
[A.D. 831-32 and 832-33:]

13. When all this was finished and carefully achieved, he provided in
St Peter the apostle’s church 14 veils with gold-studding, with various
representations of the gospels and the passions of SS Peter and Paul and
of the apostle Andrew, which hang down before the images bathed in
gold and silver, on the beam that is silvered above in front of which you
may approach the sacred confessio, very attractive and noteworthy for
men to look at.

14. In Christ’s martyr St George’s church 26 the magnificent prelate

23 This is the only clear mention of a church so named; it was presumably a recent
building replacing St Abbacyrus’s altar in the Holy Archangel’s deaconry (98:108), and
was evidently somewhere near the Elephas herbarius (in Regio VIII, near the Forum
Olitorium, cf. 97:13). Benedict of Mount Soracte (MGH SS 3.715) refers, in the context
of the year 921, to a church of the Holy Angel near the Tiber, in which is a church of St
Abbacyrus and John and St Barbara. There is no certain trace of the church later, though
Bosio identified it with ruins on a site which would correspond to the present church of
S. Lorenzo de Mondezariis (HUlsen, Chiese , 162-3). Abbacyrus (really AbbaCyrus) is the
martyr after whom Abukir in Egypt is named.

24 Cf. 94 n. 6. At this date the ‘basilica’ may have been no more than an oratory; the first
real church on the site is possibly datable from the fact that the year 991 is carved on two
of the columns. Nothing now surviving otherwise is earlier than the rebuilding of 1196,
and it was again rebuilt in 1701 (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.217).

23 This church here first occurs in the LP; it (and its monastery, 112:17) are first
mentioned by Gregory I, Dial. 1.7, recording its praepositus Nonnosus, but not the
dedication to Silvester. The legend was that Silvester had been in exile here: LP 34:2 (BP
14). Gregory II leased to it a farm from the Tuscan patrimony of the church (J2207; this
may be the earliest reference to the dedication to Silvester). It was here that king
Carloman (son of Charles Martel) became a monk, and in 747 pope Zacharias issued to
him a charter about it (J2280). Pope Paul granted it to king Pepin (J2372); in 761-2 he
granted it, along with its three subordinate monasteries, to St Silvester’s in Rome (J2349
= CC 12). In the 10th century under abbot Leo it was restored by Alberic; and it was
ultimately united to St Paul’s monastery at Rome.

26 Though the compiler curiously understates it, Gregory’s work on the deaconry of S.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

provided porticoes on each side 27 and he decorated them with various
paintings for this basilica’s adornment. With the Lord’s help he
embellished this deaconry’s apse from the foundations with total
endeavour. When this God-beloved pontiff carefully saw that this
venerable deaconry’s secretarium was decaying from its great antiquity,
in his love for him 28 and to gain the favour of others he newly set it up
to better honour. There too the holy pope presented these gifts: 1 gold-
interwoven cloth, and another with gold-studding, with an image of the
Saviour and of the martyrs Sebastian and Gregory 29 ; 2 large gold-
interwoven veils, 17 small ones. 30 In this basilica’s confessio he
provided silver railings swathed in gold.

15. The roofing of St Hadrian the martyr’s basilica on the Via Sacra 31
had decayed from great old age, and he newly restored it.

Giorgio in Velabro seems to have amounted to an almost total reconstruction. The
deaconry had originally been built in 682-3 (if an interpolation made not earlier than the
10th century into the life of Leo II may be trusted, LP 82:5 BP 79), and it certainly
existed before pope Zacharias translated to it from the Lateran the head of St George
(93:24 with n. 90), while by 799 it was ‘ancient tradition’ that warning should be given
on St George’s feastday and in his church of the litany to be held two days later on 25
April (98:11). It seems (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.263-5) that Gregory rebuilt the church on
a larger scale, presumably replacing a single-nave chapel by a basilica. The masonry
resembles that of S. Maria Nova and S. Martino ai monti, both of the 9th century; even
the badly constructed segmental relieving arches above the aisle windows recall S. Maria
Nova. The upper windows at S. Giorgio are rectangular, but their dimensions are similar
to those of S. Maria Nova and S. Prassede. Rectangular windows in the clerestory and the
aisles are not found in other early Christian basilicas in Rome, but are characteristic of
Roman secular architecture from late antiquity until the middle ages; the idea may have
been ‘taken over’ when the 9th-century church was built to replace the preceding deaconry
building of secular origin. The irregularity of plan (though determined by preexisting
buildings) is like that of S. Maria Nova with its aisles of apparently different length. And
the majority of the choir screens, with their interlace decoration, resemble those of S.
Sabina and S. Maria in Trastevere, both of the 9th century. The apse revetments, including
6th-century capitals, may, like some fragments of earlier choir screens perhaps of the 5th
or 6th century, have come from an earlier building, not necessarily on the same site.

27 ‘Porticoes on each side’ here probably means the aisles each side of the nave; but
Krautheimer, Corpus 1.264, overstates the situation by claiming that portions in the LP
usually means ‘aisles’.

28 St George, presumably.

29 One MS (C, given to amending the text) has ‘George’, which is surely true but not
what the author wrote. The full dedication of the deaconry was to SS Sebastian and
George (LP 82:5, BP 79); as late as the 13th century, the apse-fresco reflects the double
dedication (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.264); but St George alone prevailed.

30 The figure should perhaps be 18 (and MS E has it), reflecting the 9 arcades still on
each side of the nave; the two larger curtains were presumably for the apse (Krautheimer,
Corpus 1.264).

11 The name Via Sacra here refers to that road’s prolongation on the NE side of the
Forum, just as the name ‘at the Three Fates’ which belongs only to one point on this
street had been extended to the Via Sacra itself (97 n. 87; cf. 96 n. 25 for the statues of
the Fates; and 97 n. 83 for St Hadrian’s).

103. GREGORY IV

In the Lateran patriarchate he built a triclinium 32 decorated with
wondrous size, with an apse of mosaic; and two other apses, on the
right and left in the cellars, painted with various representations.

[A.D. 831-832:]

In St Clement the confessor’s church 33 the holy pope provided a gold-
interwoven cloth with lions and a fringe of eightfold weave. In St
Theodore the martyr’s deaconry, a gold-interwoven cloth adorned with
lions, with a fringe of eightfold weave. 16. In Christ’s martyr St
Laurence’s church outside the walls he provided a gold-studded cloth
representing Zacchaeus 34 . He provided another gold-interwoven cloth
with griffins, in honour of God’s holy mother ad martyres. In St
Stephen the first martyr’s basilica on the Caelian Hill, a cloth of
interwoven gold with chevrons. In the deaconry of God’s mother St
Mary on the Via Lata he provided a cross-adorned silk cloth with a
purple fringe.

In the church of God’s holy mother the ever-virgin Mary our lady ad
Praesepe he provided a gold-woven cloth with the birth, baptism,
presentation and resurrection, with, at the top of that representation, 380
pearls, 35 50 jacinths, 22 prases, and round it albaverae with the name of
lord pope Gregory IV inscribed.

17. At St Hadrian the martyr’s deaconry at the Three Fates 36 he
provided a gold-interwoven cloth.

[A.D. 832-833:]

In the Apostles’ church ad vincula 37 the same prelate provided a gold-
interwoven cloth with lions and griffins. In St Martin the confessor and
pontiffs church, he provided another gold-interwoven cloth with lions
and trees. In St Eusebius the martyr’s basilica 38 he provided a cloth of

32 Evidently to be distinguished from Leo Ill’s famous triclinium. Cf. Rohault de Fleury
1877:78, 386 and pi. IV, for its possible site.

33 The LP first mentions this church in passing at 94:14, and has repairs at 97:64; its
origin is certainly fourth-century, perhaps even earlier, HQlsen, Chiese , 238.

34 Luke 19.2-10. The church will be the tomb-chapel (the present choir of S. Lorenzo),
not the basilica maior by now dedicated to St Mary, see 105:26 n. 42.

35 Literally, ‘white jewels’.

36 Cf. n. 31.

37 The only closely dated reference to S. Pietro in vincoli between 817 and 1448.

38 Cf. 93 n. 101; 93:27; 97:74. The present building (of 1711-1750) shows nothing earlier
than the 12th century (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.210); and in the 9th century it may not yet
have been strictly a basilica. To the south of the transept, and east behind the apse, are
the remains of a late 2nd-century house, whose rooms were from the 4th and 5th centuries
progressively transformed through to the middle ages; some of the brickwork suggests 8th-
century work (cf. LP on restorations by Zacharias, 93:27, and Hadrian I, 97:74), in part
with ‘Servian’ blocks, and one of these rooms may even have contained an altar on the

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

purple dye, with eagles and a fringe of fourfold weave. The same
prelate presented in God’s mother St Mary’s basilica in Trastevere a
tyrian cloth, representing the birth and resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ. In the deaconry called in Aquiro he presented a cloth of
interwoven gold. In St Mary’s deaconry on the Via Lata he also
presented a cloth of interwoven-gold.

[A.D. 833-835:J

18. In the church of St Mark, Christ’s confessor and pontiff, this
distinguished and venerable pontiff, relying on God’s inspiration,
provided a gilded octagonal paten with an image of our Lord God in the
middle and on the two sides an image of St Mark and of the prelate
himself, weighing 5 lb; and he also presented there a gold-rimmed
octagonal chalice, gilded with leaves, weighing 6 lb; he also took care
to present there a silver scyphus weighing 6 lb. There too this pontiff
presented 2 canisters with 9 wicks, together weighing 14 lb.

In the church of St Paul the apostle, teacher of the gentiles, this
pontiff presented a gold-studded cloth representing our Lord God and,
in his retinue on right and left, the ‘praiseworthy number’ 39 of
archangels and apostles, of wondrous size and beauty, decorated with
various stones and pearls, and beautifully woven.

19. This kind and distinguished pontiff, when as a good and true
shepherd he was showing the greatest care and vigilance on all sides for
the state of God’s holy church, considered the need of the Romans that
when they wanted to grind wheat for eating they could never do so: the
aqueduct called Sabbatina 40 was now for very many years broken and
disrupted. The farsighted bishop, relying on God’s help, and putting
effort into the work, built and constructed it afresh just as it had been
built from ancient times, so that it now runs to St Peter the apostle’s
and the Janiculum with its flow uninterrupted as it used to.

[A.D. 833-834:]

20. In the ever-virgin St Mary’s deaconry in Cosmedin he provided
a tyrian cloth representing the birth and resurrection of the Lord Christ
our true God. To the honour and glory of God’s virgin St Susanna the
holy prelate presented in her church a go Id-interwoven cloth with a
fringe of tyrian. In St Cyriac the martyr and deacon’s church 41 he

precise site of the altar in the present basilica.

39 Quoted from the Te Deum , where however it refers to the prophets; ‘goodly fellowship’
in Cranmer’s free rendering.

40 See 97:59, 81, with nn. 109, 171.

41 Probably not St Cyriac’s on the Via Ostiensis (cf. 106:25) but his titulus in Thermis
(cf. 100:28), since the other churches in this chapter and the next are inside Rome.

103. GREGORY IV

provided a gold-interwoven cloth with a fringe of cross-adorned silk. In
St Pudentiana the virgin’s church, a gold-interwoven cloth with a fringe
of fourfold weave. To St Vitalis the martyr he presented a gold-
interwoven cloth, with eagles and a fringe of fourfold weave. 21. In St
Anastasia the martyr’s church 42 the same pontiff provided a gold-
interwoven cloth with eagles and a fringe of purple dye. In St Lucy the
martyr’s basilica called Orphea 43 the same prelate presented a gold-
interwoven cloth with a fringe of eightfold weave. In St Chrysogonus
the martyr’s titulus 44 the holy pontiff provided a tyrian cloth
representing Daniel, with a cross-adorned silk fringe.

[A.D. 834-835:]

In Pammachius’s titulus 45 the holy pope presented a cloth of cross-
adorned silk with a fringe of fourfold weave. In St Caecilia the martyr’s
church 46 he provided a gold-interwoven cloth with eagles and griffins,
with a fringe of purple dye. 22. In Aemiliana’s titulus he presented a
gold-interwoven cloth with eagles and a fringe of byzantine purple. In
St Xystus the martyr and pontiffs church he provided a tyrian cloth
representing Daniel, with a fringe of purple dye. In St Balbina the
martyr’s church 47 he provided a gold-interwoven cloth with a fringe of
purple dye. In Damasus’s titulus he provided a cross-adorned silk cloth
with a fringe of byzantine purple. In the church of the apostles James

42 This is the earliest literary reference to the dedicatee of this church as a martyr: the
identification of the foundress with the homonymous martyr of Sirmium was now
complete. Little of the rebuilding of S. Anastasia by Leo III (98:4) is easily visible after
the major alterations of 1721-2. The earliest reference to the church is that Damasus
adorned it with pictures (De Rossi, Inscr. Christ. II, i p. 150), and its priests signed at the
Council of 499. Architecturally, the first, 4th-century, stage of the church was very
unusual for its date: it was cruciform, with transept, single nave and apse. In the second
stage, possibly 6th century, aisles were added. The third stage, that of Leo III, was a
church with a larger nave, aisles, transept, apse and portico; it was provided with small
double-arched windows widely spaced in the upper walls, and with columns between the
aisles: 10 columns each side and two for the triumphal arch, with a pergola of 6 columns
for the chancel. The nave walls and brickwork, the windows with their small proportions
and undulating brickwork, and the thickness of the cement, date it to the late 8th or early
9th century, i. e. Leo III. The work is very like that of Leo at S. Maria in Domnica, SS
Nereo e Achilleo and S. Stefano degli Abessini, and that of Paschal at S. Prassede and S.
Cecilia (Krautheimer, Corpus 1.61ft),

4? This establishment of Honorius (LP 72:6, BP 65) was a deaconry by Leo Ill’s time;
from before 1118/9 (as ‘S. Lucia in selce’) it was a titulus (so till 1586), yet till the late
16th century it was merely a small upstairs oratory in a late antique building.

44 Cf. 92 n. 31.

45 SS Giovanni e Paolo. First mentioned in the LP at Symmachus, 53:5 (BP 44), but it
was at least 100 years older than his time. See Krautheimer, Corpus 1.267-303.

46 The last reference to S. Cecilia’s before 1060.

47 Cf. 98 n. 128.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and Philip he provided a gold-interwoven cloth. In St Marcellus the
confessor and pontiffs church he provided a gold-interwoven cloth. In
St Laurence’s basilica in Lucina 48 he provided a cross-adorned silk
cloth. In St Valentine’s church he provided a go Id-interwoven cloth with
chevrons of eightfold weave.

[A.D. 835-837:]

23. When all that can be read in what is included above had been
liberally finished and accomplished with God’s favour by Gregory IV,
pope of this undefiled see, wishing not to be slothful he began, without
prejudice to his concern for his flocks, to deal with the care of and
improvements to the venerable places, so that in his time they might be
strengthened and reformed to a new standard. At the intercession of
Peter prince of the apostles it was done as he prayed and desired. When
the prelate turned such things over in his mind and thought indecisively,
suddenly it came to his memory that it was not right for God’s holy
mother’s church, which by the habit of the ancients is even now called
Callistus’s Trastevere, 49 to continue further without the office of monks,
particulary since no small wonders and signs and various mighty works
take place in it. 24. Then with his heart spurred on by God,
strengthened by and relying on almighty God’s help, he established
from its foundations a monastery 50 alongside this basilica and adorned
it with new buildings. In it he gathered canonical monks 51 to perform

48 Cf. 97:73. The early 5th-century basilica was built by Xystus III (LP 46:6 BP 36, cf.
p. xxx) to replace earlier buildings which had come into Christian hands at least by 366
when Damasus was elected pope there, and there is a 4th-century epitaph, found at St
Valentine’s, of a priest of the titulus Lucinae. Xystus’s basilica was typical of its time; its
proportions are identical to those of S. Vitale (built under Innocentius, LP 42:3-6 BP 31-
2), with a nave 150 Roman feet long and 50 feet wide; but its apse was of an unusual
‘stilted’ design. In the late 8th century a small apse was added to the side-room on the
west of the main apse (the church is orientated to the north); this may be one of the
changes recorded as made by Hadrian I (97:73). The basilica was largely rebuilt in the
early 12th century, but apart from the narthex and campanile most of what is now visible
is Renaissance or baroque, Krautheimer, Corpus 2.159-184.

49 S. Maria in Trastevere, on which see further n. 71.

50 Known, like the church, as S. Maria in Trastevere. Its full name is given in c. 37: SS
Mary, Cornelius & Callistus Trastevere. On the monastery, Ferrari 228-9: it seems to be
new, as the LP states, though Ferrari cites Morin, Revue Benedictine 4 (1887), 352, for
the view that Gregory IV was restoring an abandoned monastery.

51 This meaning of monachos canonicoswas that understood by Mabillon (Annales O.S.B.
2.603), ‘monks living by a rule, i.e. regular’, with canonicus being a graecism for
regular is. But Duchesne thought that the expression meant ‘canons’, i.e. regular canons
living under a rule ( regula ); if so it would be the earliest appearance at Rome of this
mixture of clerical life and monastic rule; he stated that it had been introduced in France
in the previous century by Chrodegang bishop of Metz; at the council of Aachen in 817
Louis the Pious had reforming rules adopted which did much to spread this institution, by
rigidly distinguishing the canonical life from the regular life of those who followed the

103. GREGORY IV

the office therein and chant thanks and praises every day and each
ensuing night to almighty God with the heart’s inmost breath; and, as
we see at present, the noteworthy pastor increased and thoroughly
consolidated this work with great effort and great endeavour. For where
there was previously no special provision, now by God’s dispensation
there are fair dwellings for monks, and in places which recently seemed
to men to be full of brambles and filth cells have now been constructed;
and in them, after the offices of praise, Christ’s sheep dwell together
and sleep most bountifully with all that they need.

25. So 52 at that time this same church was broken down by reason of
its great age in certain places around; 53 but he restored it with solid
reinforcements 54 on all sides. In it he provided a Manger, 55 a copy of the
Manger in God’s holy mother’s [church] called Major, which he
decorated with gold and silver sheets. In it, for the remedy and pardon
of sins, he presented these gifts: a gold image 56 representing our lady,
with various precious jewels, 13 large jacinths, 10 prases, 29 large

rule of St Benedict. Niermeyer, canonicus 4, cites this passage: ‘enrolled on the list of
clerks (belonging to the officially recognized clergy)’; the canon would be the list of
clergy. This dispute leads Ferrari on to his chapter ‘Roman Monastic Observance’, pp.
379-407, where, especially at p. 383, he urges that Duchesne was wrong; following
Hertling 1930:335-59, Ferrari argues that the LP fits into a long tradition of describing
monks who lived as they should be doing as living according to a rule. It does not imply
that they lived by any particular rule, whether the Benedictine or any other; compare
97:68 where Hadrian I restored the monastery of Honorius and installed an abbot and
monks to live there according to a rule. At Rome, with its usual conservatism, it was only
in the 10th century that many monks adopted the Benedictine rule, thanks to Alberic
calling in Odo of Cluny to reform the Roman monasteries about 936; only after that could
the word ‘canon’ be used for those who, while living a common life, were not
Benedictines and could no longer be described as monks.

52 cc. 25-27 contain abominable Latinity even by the standards of the LP; whoever made
the original entries in the vestiarium registers for this year may be to blame. The text may
be corrupt in places. For the rarer technical terms see the glossary.

53 The meaning is probably ‘around its outer circuit wall or perimeter’.

54 Possibly ‘buttresses’; but munitionibus is probably not so technical.

55 The 12th-century S. Maria in Trastevere still has a Chapel of the Manger, opening
from the middle of the left aisle, but it is entirely modernized. In the 9th century it may
have been on the same site but at the lower level (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.69).

56 The 7th-century list of Roman basilicas (Isiae vero ecclesiae appended to the Epitome
de locis sanctis , CChr 175 p. 321 lines 177-8) contains: ‘The Basilica called S. Maria
Trastevere; an image of St Mary which was made by itself is there.’ From the date of this
list it should follow that the image mentioned is different from this one in the LP. But
Krautheimer, Corpus 3.66, believes the passage is a 9th/10th-century insertion into the De
locis , citing Bertelli 1961:18ff; it may thus refer to the icon in the LP; that the LP does
not call the icon miraculous is no reason to suppose it did not later come to be thought
so. Unfortunately the CChr editors think that both parts of the De locis date to c. 635-645;
and the supposed insertion occurs in the oldest MS (Vindobonensis 795, 8th century); if
this is right, Krautheimer’s explanation must be rejected. Gregory presented another image
of the Virgin, cherishing himself, in c. 33.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

pearls, 20 large alabandinae , .. small pearls, and with various crowns
uniform in design around the head; 2 pairs cercelli with precious jewels,
18 pearls, 8 prases, 4 jacinths. 26. In the same place an image with 2
precious necklaces 57 of prases, one of which has 11 pendants; also a
gold three-thread necklace with various jewels, 73 pearls and 33
buticulae\ a necklace on which hang 13 jacinth-jewels; 9 gold digitiae
hanging on a gold thread; also a threaded necklace, including 14
hanging jacinth-jewels adorned with crosses, with 2 buticellae and 3
small ones; all the necklaces with their petinantes; 3 fine gold bowls,
chased, uniform in design, adorned with crosses, hanging on 3 chains,
with lily and hook, with the inscription: ‘From the gifts of God and St
Mary called Praesepe Trastevere’ and ‘Lord pope Gregory IV presented
this with pure heart’; a Saxon bowl adorned with crosses with a
representation like a lion’s mane, with various fine gold works, hanging
on 4 chains and 1 hook; a gilded Saxon bowl, having [a representation]
like 4 lions, 58 with various representations of serpents and in the middle
a standing pine-cone and 4 little lioncubs, hanging on 3 chains and 1
hook; also 4 Saxon bowls, 59 each of which includes gilded works,
hanging on 3 chains and hooks, 1 of which has 2 glass jewels; this too
the lord pontiff Gregory IV presented with willing heart.

27. In the church of St Paul the apostle, teacher of the gentiles, this
prelate presented a gold-interwoven curtain, hanging on the triumphal
arch, with the annunciation and birth of our Lord Jesus Christ in the
middle; 1 dyed purple veil, hanging on the cornice beneath the silver
image, and representing the emperor. There too he provided 2 other
small gold-interwoven veils, which hang round the altar outside, with 60
[lora] 16 in number; 5 veils hanging round the altar inside, with 25
lora\ 24 veils which hang in the presbyterium ; 40 gold-interwoven veils
which hang in the great arches. On this church’s canopy he provided 4
veils.

In Christ’s martyr St George’s church he provided 6 gold-interwoven
veils, with chevrons of eightfold weave around them.

morenae ; some kind of necklaces; see the glossary for this and other technical words
in this obscure section.

58 For leones IIU Bianchini had Leonis IV, thus attributing prescience to Gregory IV!

59 The figure ‘4’ seems to belong (in sense) here; 3 chains do not need 4 hooks.

60 A noun is missing for the 16 objects; parallelism with the next clause (‘outside’,
‘inside’), and the arithmetic (16 for 2 veils, 25 lora for 5 veils) suggests lora , for the
meaning of which see the glossary.

103. GREGORY IV

[A.D. 835-836:]

28. In St Saba’s monastery 61 this God-protected and distinguished
pontiff provided 1 cloth of dyed purple with lions and with a fringe of
eightfold weave. In St Anastasius the martyr’s monastery 62 he provided
1 cross-adorned silk cloth with a fringe of fourfold weave. In St
Andrew’s monastery 63 in Clivus Scauri, he provided 1 cross-adorned silk
cloth with a fringe of eightfold weave. In St Agatha the martyr’s
monastery 64 above the Subura he provided 1 cloth of dyed purple with
a fringe of eightfold weave. In St Erasmus’s monastery 65 he provided 1
cross-adorned silk cloth with a fringe of eightfold weave.

[A.D. 836-837.:]

29. In St Lucy’s deaconry 66 in Septem Vias he provided 1 cloth of dyed
purple with a fringe of eightfold weave. In St Lucy’s oratory in
Renatus’s monastery 67 he provided a cloth of dyed purple with lions and
with a fringe of eightfold weave. In St Silvester’s monastery 68 he
provided 1 cloth of dyed purple with a fringe of eightfold weave; there
too he provided another gold-interwoven cloth with griffins and with a
purple fringe. In St Praxedes’s monastery 69 he provided 1 cloth of dyed
purple with a cross-adorned silk fringe.

[A.D. 837-838:]

30. In the basilica of the apostle St Paul the world’s teacher, this
God-protected and distinguished pontiff provided 22 gold-studded veils
for the arches of the presbyterium , representing St Paul the apostle
himself, and an edging with gold around.

In the church of God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady
called Callistus and Cornelius’s, this God-elected and distinguished

61 See 96 n. 29.

62 See 97 n. 189.

63 See 96 n. 28.

64 Possibly the monastery founded by Gregory II (91:10, n. 37; cf. 98:56, n. 110). This
is the last reference to S. Agata de’ Goti before 1461-1496. The original church with nave
and two aisles (7 arches each side, with 6 columns and 2 end pilasters) is in the style of
the second half of the 5th century: the measurements are probably in byzantine feet
because it was built as an Arian church (so Krautheimer, Corpus 1.3).

65 See 98 n. 32.

66 For the location see 98 n. 86; it was a deaconry in Leo Ill’s time also (98:38, 75); but
its context here might suggest it was regarded as a monastery (if so Geertman’s year-
divisions break down; a monastery should not head the list for a year).

67 See 98 n. 84.

68 See 95 nn. 9, 11. This is the last donation to the oratory within the monastery;
henceforth it and S Dionysius’s basilica (now S. Silvestro in capite) are taken as a single
entity; cf. 106:23 for the separate identity of the oratory and the basilica.

69 See 100:9-11 with notes thereto.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

bishop presented 2 silver crowns, with 12 dolphins for each of them,
weighing 12 lb. In Christ’s martyr St George’s deaconry he provided 1
silver crown with 12 dolphins, weighing 6 lb.

[A.D. 838-839:]

31. In the basilica of God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady
called Callistus and Cornelius’s, this God-protected and distinguished
pontiff provided 4 silver canisters, with an inscription of God’s holy
mother and of lord pope Gregory, weighing 24 lb; and on its altar silver
panels weighing 113 lb.

There too in that holy place within the circuit 70 of that church, the
venerable pope provided an elaborate and beautiful reconstruction. The
altar 71 had previously been sited in a low place, almost in the middle of
the nave; the people of both sexes congregated round it, and the pontiff
celebrated the sacred mysteries while the people intermingled in
disorderly fashion with the clergy. 32. Furthermore, SS Callistus,
Cornelius and Calepodius’s holy bodies 72 were entombed in the church’s

70 ambitus seems to mean the presbyterium , including the semi-circular apse; cf. ambitu
abside in the next chapter, and 104:19 (with n. 34).

71 The problem for Gregory was like that facing Paschal at S. Maria Maggiore (100:30);
his solution was in part the same, but he had the additional problem of housing relics. The
present S. Maria in Trastevere is a total reconstruction undertaken 1131-1181 (in part with
spoils from the Baths of Caracalla), which entirely altered its condition. There were some
excavations by De Rossi in 1865-69, who (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.71) mentioned finding,
in addition to some earlier elements, a chancel, perhaps that of Gregory IV, two pulpits,
the raised level and steps to the 9th-century apse (below the triumphal arch of the 12th-
century reconstruction, which added a transept and an apse further back), and the
substructure of the 9th-century apse-level. Parts of the chancel screens and ciboria found
are now mounted in the narthex and the passage to the right aisle (Krautheimer, 3.69, who
thinks they may well be of 9th-century date). De Rossi’s discoveries helped Duchesne
interpret the present passage. It seems that before Gregory’s time there was no
presbyterium in front of the altar and that the altar (‘almost in the middle of the nave’)
was so close to the people that they ‘intermingled with the clergy’, especially since the
sanctuary was at the same level as the nave (‘in a low place’); the Roman Council of 826
had barred the people from the presbyterium during the liturgy. Gregory heaped up soil
in the apse and inserted in the middle a crypt in which he put the bodies of the three
saints whose tomb had hitherto been in the ‘southern aisle’ (the left, on entering). The
altar was then set above this crypt, which was provided with an opening turned towards
the nave (‘a confessio facing east’); on each side of this confessio steps gave access to the
level of the new floor in the apse. The presbyterium and its enclosure were extended
forward outside the apse; to the north of the presbyterium was the matroneum.

72 Duchesne noted that the translation of Callistus and Calepodius from their original
burial place in the cemetery on the Via Aurelia is unrecorded (see Duchesne 1,142, n. 6),
but whenever it happened no church was more suited to receive them than this titulus of
Callistus. Cornelius had been translated by Hadrian I (97:69) to the church of the
domusculta Capracorum. The Abbey of Compi£gne later claimed to have his body, along
with (thanks to Charles the Bald) the relics of Cyprian. Ado’s martyrology (14 September)
mentions Cyprian’s translation there but not that of Cornelius, and if Cornelius was ever
taken to Compi6gne it was later than Gregory IV’s time. But the account of his translation

103. GREGORY IV

southern aisle, lying behind the people’s backs, and were not worthily
honoured. The religious pope did not bear this lightly, but set himself
to the task with expert endeavour and very painstakingly, and,
embarking on a wondrous work, he finished it excellently. He excavated
a crypt, 73 and lifting up these holy bodies with extreme reverence he
deposited and buried them honourably at the church’s western side, that
is, within the circuit of the apse. 74 Round this he accumulated as large
a mound as possible, and erected and decorated a tribunal which he
embellished with wondrous stones. 75 And furthermore 76 he fitted up a
confessio facing east, and decorated it by attaching ceilings of breath¬
taking wonder, inside 77 the altar’s risings, i.e. its supports; and this 78 he
embellished conspicuously with silver in a quantity wondrous for its
amount and adornment, in honour of God’s mother the ever-virgin St
Mary; he removed the old one of course, and erected steps of beautiful
workmanship between the risings. In front of it he constructed from the
foundation a presbyterium of ample compass and elaborate work, and
to this he joined on the northern aisle a matroneum fenced round with
stone. 33. Also, adding beauty to the altar and rightly honouring the
Lord’s mother with gifts, he provided there a gold-studded cloth with
byzantine purple, representing our Lord Jesus Christ’s birth and
resurrection, and also an image of God’s mother St Mary cherishing an
image of its presenter.

This God-protected and distinguished pontiff provided 6 silver amae
which go in procession to all the stationes , each weighing 13 lb; 2
scyphi each weighing 10 lb; 8 gemelliones each weighing 2 lb.

[A.D. 839-840:]

34. After this pontiff had by God’s favour completed all this fittingly,
he restored to its ancient condition and standard what was damaged
through old age at St Peter the apostle’s church outside the walls: 79 to

published by Lebeuf (PL 129.1376) is of very little value.

73 If Duchesne was right, this was a new crypt hollowed out to make a shrine in the
mound of material Gregory had placed in the apse; see n. 71.

74 Was the unintended effect of this and the later works the undermining of the apse
itself? Leo IV (105:60) had to restore the apse, but because of its ruined state Benedict
III (106:30) had to rebuild it entirely. Gregory’s ‘mound and pile’ may have been
ineffectually intended to repair damage he realized he had caused.

75 The tribunal would now be the floor of the apse, but it is unclear whether the
‘wondrous stones’ were for the pavement or revetment of the apse.

76 supra cannot mean ‘above’: the confessio was below the floor of the new chancel.

77 Or ‘below’ (infra being ambiguous, as often at this date).

78 The altar, apparently.

79 Krautheimer, Corpus 5.176 and 268, shows that cc. 34-5 list the main components of

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

beautify the basilica he newly dedicated almost the whole portico 80 over
God’s mother St Mary’s oratory called Mediana with beams and other
wood. He also completed with new work and to a noteworthy standard
the other portico in front of the silver doors. 81 On the main 82 front of
this church’s Paradise, on the mosaic, he decreed a very speedy painting
and restoration of all that had been damaged from times of old on that
wall. 35. He also renewed this church’s portico 83 which is conspicuous
above its steps up which the people without distinction have to climb
for prayer. Close to the Needle 84 he built a hospice, small yet
becomingly constructed, for the pontiff to rest in when after morning
prayers or the offices of mass his limbs are liable to fatigue, and he
decorated it with noteworthy pictures.

Amongst other instances of good activity he also provided, for the
pontiffs requirement and use, in the Lateran patriarchate close to
Christ’s martyr St Laurence’s oratory, a quite suitable dwelling; 85 there

the atrium as still known in 16th-century records: a) the oratory on the upper floor of the
gatehouse (S. Maria in Mediana , in Turri, ad Grada , or in Gradibus; from the 12th
century also inter Turres\ see index in Duchesne III.327fT); b) the narthex in front of the
basilica’s main doors (‘portico in front of the silver doors’); c) the facade of the basilica
with its decaying mosaic (‘main front of this church’s Paradise’); d) the portico of the
gatehouse above the steps up from the piazza (‘this church’s portico above its steps’). The
only difference from the 16th-century situation was that the atrium was not yet at the level
of the narthex and gatehouse-floor but 45 or 90 cm lower; but cf. LP on pope Donus, 80:1
(BP 73), contrast Hadrian I, 97:57; the undated raising of the atrium was after 795 (so
Krautheimer); Symmachus’s cantharus (the pigna) will have once stood on a platform
which was then buried nearly to its top.

m Duchesne III. 123 is certainly wrong to identify S. Maria Mediana with the oratory built
by Gregory III near the triumphal arch and therefore to suggest that here and immediately
below ‘portico’ seems to have a special sense (since the oratory cannot have had a portico
other than the chancel which enclosed it). S. Maria Mediana was not inside the basilica;
it was the gatehouse (the Turris ) at the eastern end of the atrium. Nevertheless the
meaning of‘portico’ is unusual; Krautheimer, Corpus 5.175, suggests it may mean the
wooden ceiling or roof in the oratory of S. Maria on the upper floor of the gatehouse,
rather than portico in the ordinary sense.

81 This ‘portico’ is the entire narthex in front of the basilica itself, Krautheimer, Corpus
5.175; despite Duchesne III there is no reason why the word should not cover the whole
stretch, not merely the section immediately outside the main (silver) doors.

82 principali is here taken with fronte ; if it belongs with musibo it makes little difference.
The mosaic concerned is that on the church’s main facade, above the narthex just
mentioned; not ( pace Duchesne) that on the facade of the atrium where Giotto’s mosaic
later stood. But Duchesne is right to note that the confused text here does not wholly
clarify whether new mosaics, replacements, or restorations are meant.

83 This is the portico of the gatehouse above the steps leading up from the piazza
(Krautheimer, Corpus 5.175), and through which one entered the atrium of St Peter’s.

84 Cf. 98:27; the obelisk, then to the south of the basilica.

85 Rohault de Fleury (cf. n. 32) made conjectures about the apartment mentioned here and
the buildings in the next chapter. St Laurence’s oratory is here implied to be the pope’s
private chapel. It is first mentioned at 96:4, and survives as the Sancta Sanctorum, at the

103. GREGORY IV

too the stillness is excellent, and the pontiff can emerge from it with his
clerics and perform the praises due to the Lord almighty.

[A.D. 840-841:]

36. After the building of all this which can be read above, this holy
pope Gregory set up and arranged from their foundations to a new
standard of workmanship some of the buildings which had been
constructed within the palace by the Fathers of old but were now
destroyed and almost on the point of collapse from great age. As for the
stairs facing the cellar, up or down which men used previously to climb
as if it were night, he newly remodelled them so that no darkness could
thenceforth impede those passing along them. From this place to St
Laurence’s oratory he restored all that was old and added other things
new, amongst which he ordered the building of 3 parlours. 37. As for
the bath located close to the cellar, he also renewed this throughout
from its foundations and adorned it with marble and other pleasing
works. It was previously about to collapse from its age, if the foresight
and excellent endeavour of this great pontiff had not decreed its
restoring to its earlier condition.

In the Saviour’s church called Constantinian he provided a gold-
woven cloth representing the Palms and the Lord’s Supper. 86

In the venerable monastery 87 of God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary
and of SS Cornelius and Callistus, called Trastevere, he provided 6
canisters weighing in all 18 lb; 1 scyphus weighing 8 lb 3 oz; an
incense-boat 88 with a censer weighing 3 lb; 1 necklace weighing 3 lb;
2 candlesticks weighing .. lb.

[AD. 841-842:]

38. So all these things were completed and exactly accomplished.
Now his holy, venerable and memorable singlemindedness, and the same
devoted service that he ever had to almighty God, was as has often been
said also solicitous without distinction for the people’s future well-being
and the deliverance of the fatherland, to prevent the enemy capturing
them if God would grant it otherwise. In this holy father and pope’s
time the ungodly, wicked and God-hated race of the Agareni were rising
up from their own territory and compassing nearly every island and

top of the Scala Santa; the latter was moved to its present position from St Silvester’s
oratory in the 16th century, Htilsen, Chiese , 291.

86 The events of Palm Sunday (Christ’s entry into Jerusalem) and Maundy Thursday (the
Last Supper).

87 Cf. c. 24 for the foundation of this monastery, here given its full name.

88 Duchesne prints cantara (‘chandelier’) with the best MS, D; but the context requires
cantra (so MSS C and E), if as elsewhere this means ‘incense-boat’.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

mainland district, and atrociously causing - and are still to the present
day never ceasing to cause - the looting of men and the devastation of
places. So, in view of these unaccustomed and alarming perils, the
merciful prelate was much afraid that the people committed to him by
God and St Peter dwelling in the cities of Porto and Ostia would feel
the detriment of trouble and looting at the hands of the wicked
Saracens; and he drew sighs from his inmost heart and wisely began to
find out how he could assist and deliver the city of Ostia. 89 39.
Straightway almighty God put this scheme into his heart: if he wanted
to save the people, he had to construct the city there anew from its
foundations, since what had been built aforetime was now shaken by old
age and wholly destroyed. In pursuit of what God had inspired in him
he built from the ground at this city of Ostia a second very solid city;
he fortified it all round with higher walls, and with gates and
crenellations and trap-doors, and on top he arranged catapults with noble
artfulness to fight off the enemy if necessary. On the outside, not far
from these walls, he encircled the city with a deeper ditch, to stop the
enemy reaching the walls too easily.

40. When the work of new construction on this city was due to start,
the holy pope resided there many days himself and with his men he
erected no small part of the walls from their foundations, practically
taking his allotted turn. From then on, without distinction, he endured
in his sacred breast much effort and struggle, until with God prospering
it this city was brought to the correct completion of all its building. For
this newly constructed city he laid down this name that should endure
for ever - Gregoriopolis; all men whether of Roman or of other birth
should call it this after his own name Gregory. And it truly deserved to
take this title from its founder’s name; for with almighty God’s help and
strengthened by his power he did what we read that no other pontiff has
done: he built and designed this work with wondrous beauty and

89 On Gregory IV’s work at Ostia see Meiggs 1960:100-103, Broccoli 1982. In view of
the place the foundation of Gregoriopolis occupies in the life Duchesne put it near the end
of the pontificate after the death of Louis (840) and the Battle of Fontenoy (841), when
Rome began to realize that the Franks could hardly be relied on for defence; on
Geertman’s chronology, adopted here, it will be in 841-2. Since the end of Charlemagne’s
reign Saracen pirates from Africa had infested the islands of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the
Roman coastline. Landing in Sicily in 827, they took Palermo in 831, from where they
quickly spread to the mainland, intruding into the quarrels of the Lombard princes of
Benevento and Salerno and ravaging the barely-defended coast. Though the name
Gregoriopolis did not outlast Gregory, his small enclosure survived and was often
repaired: it is the nucleus of modem Ostia. ‘There one finds in the midst of hovels a rustic
bishopric with a small chapel dedicated to St Aurea which marks the site of the Christian
cemetery of ancient Ostia’; so Duchesne; things are tidier today. On St Aurea’s see 105:51
and n. 83.

103. GREGORY IV

construction for the deliverance of the people and of the fatherland.

41 . So while they remained at their stations, this angelic and
noteworthy prelate provided in the Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ’s
basilica close to the Lateran patriarchate 1 gold-studded cloth,
representing, on the front of the altar, SS John the Baptist and John the
Evangelist; and round the altar, cohering in one body as it were, 90 veils
which are also gold-studded, some with embroideries in the manner of
griffins, with horns embroidered on their foreheads.

In Christ’s martyr St Laurence’s monastery 91 called in Pallacinis he
provided 6 silver canisters and 2 candlesticks with silver overlaid; 92 1
silver scyphus and 1 silver ama. In pope St Gregory’s oratory inside St
Peter the apostle’s church, 4 silver colonnettes with 40 lb of silver.
[A.D. 842-843:]

42 . After this this venerable pontiff decreed that a suitably worthy
house surrounded on all sides with porticoes and galleries be newly built
from the ground in the manor 93 sumamed Draco’s; in this, both he and
also future pontiffs with all their retinues will be able to stay in
residence as long as they are pleased to do so. In another manor 94 called
Galeria he built another house, large and spacious and suitably
distinguished, for the need and requirement of pontiffs where they may
spaciously lodge with all their servants whenever convenient.

43 . In God’s mother the undefiled virgin our lady St Mary’s basilica
called ad martyres, this beloved and distinguished pontiff, burning with
love from on high, provided a fine silver canopy weighing 400 lb; 1
fine silver crown weighing IOV 2 lb. In St Marcellus the confessor and
pontiffs basilica he provided 3 fine silver crowns 95 weighing .. lb. In
St George the martyr’s deaconry he provided an alexandrian veil with

90 If this is the meaning, quasi is oddly placed. Dr Cheesman suggests ‘<cloths> like
veils’. But perhaps read quattuor ,; ‘four veils cohering in one body’ will be the tetravela
draped round altars, as elsewhere.

91 See 97 n. 139.

92 desuper inductas\ perhaps more technically ‘with silver fused on top’.

93 Tomassetti 1896:111, locates this curtis on a crag overhanging the the Tiber for some
40 metres; Meiggs 1960:264 and map, 112, has Dragone, on the left bank of the Tiber,
6 km upstream as the crow flies, and Dragoncello, a bit further upstream. There are other
variants of the name. Duchesne cites fundus Draconis in a bull of Gregory VII, and
modem properties named Dragone, Le Dragare, La Dragoncella.

94 The curtis Galeria may be part or all of the domusculta Galeria founded by Hadrian
I on the Via Portuensis at Ponte di Galera (97:55 and n. 98). The two villas in this chapter
seem to have been opposite each other on each side of the Tiber.

95 Reading coronas (with MS C) for coronam printed by Duchesne from MSS DE; just
before, where the singular is required and D has it, both C and E give the plural.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

12 pheasants, and 1 feathered 96 linen veil in front of the doors.

[A.D. 843-844:]

44. This blessed pontiff after he ruled the Roman and apostolic see
gloriously for 16 years was taken from this life and went to everlasting
rest. He performed 5 ordinations in March, September and December,
.. priests, .. deacons; for various places 185 bishops. He was buried in
St Peter’s. 97 His bishopric was vacant 15 days.

96 Presumably ‘depicting feathers’, not made of them; cf. usages like leonatus.

97 His epitaph is lost; no author mentions his tomb. For the date see n. 1. The vacancy
of 15 days may or may not be reliable.

104. SERGIUS II (844-847).

This life gives an unusual insight into the process of composition.
The first stage was the compilation of the account of Sergius’s
accession, cc. 1-18, and this is given in all of the MSS. The rest of the
life exists in two recensions, both of which are, I think, modifications
of an earlier version which does not survive. For the earlier surviving
recension (given below in curly brackets) there existed only one MS (E 5 ,
the lost Farnesianus ); the other MSS (and there are not many) give the
later recension (in italics below). But pseudo-Liutprand, in his summary
of Sergius’s life, was clearly following the text of the Famesi recension.
Both recensions give substantially the same material in cc. 19-39, but
there are some differences in arrangement, and signs that the later
recension has modified misleading expressions in the earlier surviving
(and presumably the lost original) recension. After c. 39 the later
recension merely gives the concluding formulae of the life; but the
earlier surviving recension continued with a blistering attack on Sergius
and his brother, followed by divine retribution in the form of the
Saracen attack on Rome in 846; the conclusion of this, unfortunately,
is lost. Though in the earlier surviving recension, this material cannot
have been in the lost original version; otherwise we would have to
suppose that the later surviving recension chose to suppress it. To
suggest that an attempt was made to deny that the invasion had ever
taken place would be implausible: there are back references to the event
in later lives. We should suppose then that (after c. 18) a continuator
produced a version of cc. 19-39, surviving for us in the two later
recensions; after c. 39 the author of the earlier of these gave the
additional material, but the compiler of the later recension chose merely
to conclude with the ordinary formulae.

Despite the efforts of the Roman people (electors, since 817) to have
a deacon John (known only from the LP) made pope, and his
enthronement in the Lateran Palace, the aristocracy chose the aristocratic
(he was closely related to Stephen IV), if elderly and gout-ridden,
Sergius as pope. They ejected John from the Lateran, crushed all
opposition and had Sergius ordained without waiting for imperial
approval as required by the Constitutio of 824. Such a claim to
independence might be justified by the need to prevent a recurrence of
popular opposition (at the next papal election, in 847, a more plausible
excuse for the same disregard of the emperor would be at hand). Sergius
prevented some of his supporters killing John and had him confined in
a monastery; John’s later life is unrecorded.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

The emperor was angry at this flouting of the Constitutio. The
consequences are related in cc. 8 - 18 (an important parallel account is
given in AB 844 Nelson 57, see n. 22 below). Lothar intended to punish
the Roman nobles for their action, and in June 844 his son the young
Louis II (who would later be sole emperor but was now king of Italy)
came from Pavia with an army and with his great-uncle Drogo,
archbishop of Metz, the leading Frankish churchman. The LP describes
the punitive pillaging of papal territory.

Hoping, perhaps, to forestall an attack on Rome itself, Sergius agreed
to receive Louis with due ceremony. There then followed at a synod of
some 20 Italian bishops held in St Peter’s an inquiry into Sergius’s right
to the papacy. This was conceded, but he and the citizens of Rome were
required to swear an oath to Lothar as emperor as required by the
Constitutio (Delogu 1968:142-3) and to keep to that document’s rules
in regard to papal elections. On 15 June 844 Sergius crowned Louis
king of the Lombards, anointed him and girded him with a sword. The
LP regards as a success for Sergius the fact that he refused the demand
of Drogo that the Romans swear an oath of allegiance to Louis as well;
that was more than the letter of the Constitutio required and would have
conceded that the papal state was part of the kingdom of Italy. In
relating (c. 16) Sergius’s refusal to reinstate archbishops Ebbo and
Bartholomew (deposed in 835 for their involvement in the deposition of
Louis the Pious), the writer loses an opportunity to point out that
Sergius was going against Drogo’s proposal; but it may be significant
that he fails to mention Sergius’s granting to Drogo the status of papal
vicar north of the Alps, as Lothar desired (n. 23). The saga of Ebbo’s
status and his dispute with his successor at Rheims, Hincmar, would
drag on long after Ebbo himself died. That Sergius was already involved
is known not merely from the LP but from other documents. In 846
Sergius ordered Charles the Bald to send Guntbold archbishop of Rouen
and other bishops to meet the pope’s envoys at Trier to discuss the
quarrel between Hincmar and Ebbo, and to make Hincmar come to the
synod; Sergius let Guntbold himself know that after Easter that year (18
April) he would send his envoys to Lothar, and he ordered him to
convene with bishops at Trier to resolve the quarrel; Hincmar also was
ordered to appear at Trier (J2589-91, Mansi 15.776-7).

Another episcopal dispute was a concern to Sergius, that between
Andrew patriarch of Aquileia (at Frejus) and his rival patriarch Venerius
(at Grado). Sergius summoned Andrew to appear at Rome on 11
November with Venerius, but it then occurred to him that the dispute
ought not to be resolved without the authority and consent of the
emperor. He asked Lothar to grant him licence to convoke a general

104. SERGIUS II

synod, since the scandals of the church were open knowledge; he
promised the parties involved that when he received a reply he would
let them know (J2592-3). Sergius’s death probably ended this initiative,
but his willingness to involve the emperor is significant.

Age and gout perhaps caused what Aheme (1967) describes as
Sergius’s allegedly tetchy disposition; they certainly seem to have
caused him to allow himself to be dominated by his unscrupulous and
power-crazed brother Benedict, who obtained, by bribery it was alleged,
the bishopric of Albano. In the Famesi recension the LP lays most of
the blame for the faults of Sergius’s administration on Benedict: simony
in obtaining church appointments was rife; and the LP alludes to other
methods of financing the building projects of the time, such as the
enlargement of St John Lateran on Sergius’s own plan, the rebuilding
of S. Martino ai monti, and the repair of the Aqua Jovia (c. 21). To
assist his nefarious and lecherous ambitions Benedict even bribed the
emperor to have himself granted what is described (c. 41) as ‘the
primacy and lordship at (of?) Rome’, ‘the monarchy at (of?) Rome’.
There is some obscurity about what is meant by these terms, and
whether they represent any change in the delicate constitutional
relationship between Rome and the empire as it had existed since 824.
The author of the Famesi recension was not concerned with such
niceties.

Down to this point there has been no suggestion that officials in
Rome were appointed by the emperor. The Comtitutio of 824 had
devised a means for the emperor to check their good behaviour, but he
could not dismiss them and the pope clearly retained the right of
appointment (see p. 34). It is possible, firstly, that Sergius was (or was
claimed by Benedict to be) so incapacitated that Lothar thought it right
to appoint Benedict as a stop-gap until the next papal election: Benedict
was, after all, bishop of a suburbicarian see. It would also be possible
to suppose that Lothar saw the situation as an excellent opportunity to
assert a greater level of imperial power at Rome than had hitherto been
feasible. Perhaps he was interfering beyond his rights: after the disputed
papal election in 844 the Romans were in no position to object. Yet in
the outcome of that election the emperor had not had everything his
own way. The regular oath had been sworn to Lothar, but Drogo had
failed to get Louis included in the oath; nor could Drogo get Sergius to
do what he wanted about Ebbo.

There is, however, another explanation, preferred by Duchesne, and
in keeping with the fact that no later holder of such a ‘lordship’ is
recorded. Lothar’s Constitutio had set up two envoys, one to be
appointed by the pope, the other by the emperor. That this arrangement

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

was not a dead letter is clear from the judicial session held by imperial
envoys at the Lateran in 829 (see p. 45). Now the Libellus de
imperatoriapotestate in urbe Roma (MGH SS 3.721) tells us that Louis
II ‘in consultation with the chief Romans, established in the city of
Rome a certain bishop Arsenius who was adorned with holiness and
knowledge and was apocrisiarius of the Roman see, and gave him as an
assistant John, the deacon and archchancellor and his own secretary,
who was later made bishop of Rieti, the place from where he had now
been chosen.’ Duchesne believed that these two men held the posts
created in 824; one came from the papal clergy, was bishop of Orte in
Roman territory, and already had the office of papal apocrisiarius; the
other was a cleric from the duchy of Spoleto and was the imperial
archchancellor. Yet despite the latter’s status at court, he is only the
helper to the papal envoy. In effect, the emperor had somehow achieved
a situation in which Arsenius, though appointed ‘from the side of the
pope’, is described by the Libellus as appointed by himself - the
emperor had in fact made both the envoys into his own agents and
confidants. Perhaps this had come about through the practical
impossibility of the pope’s appointing anyone unacceptable to the
emperor. The LP (107:63) and other texts describe Arsenius as both
apocrisiarius and envoy, and successors are known down to 885 with
the same double title (J3015, 3109, 3401). Now Arsenius held the post
by 848/9 {Life of St Conwoion , Mabillon, AaSS OSB VI. 184); Benedict
may well have been his predecessor as envoy appointed ‘from the side
of the pope’, in practice on the advice (at the very least) of the emperor.
That he abused his powers and that his nomination had been largely due
to the emperor changes nothing essential in the constitutional
relationship between Rome and the empire.

In August 846 Saracen pirates landed near Ostia, sacked it (and its
new fortress Gregoriopolis) and Porto, and plundered the two great
shrines outside the Aurelianic walls - St Peter’s and St Paul’s. To the
compiler of the LP (and others) this was divine vengeance for the state
to which Sergius and his brother had reduced the church.

A possible gap in the life is on restorations to the monastery of SS
Silvester, Stephen & Dionysius, perhaps in 844; but the bull of Sergius
II recording this is regarded as spurious (Ferrari, 303, though Kehr
1906:82 n. 4 defended it).

104. SERGIUS II

104. 1. SERGIUS [II; early 844 to 27 January 847],' of Roman
origin, son of Sergius, of the 4th region, held the see 3 years. He was
sprung from an illustrious mother, 1 2 and she began with great endeavour
to educate him on chaste provender, so that no one could hear from him
or see in him anything lewd or wanton. He had no little contempt for
childish amusements, and so in the eyes of all he was accomplished in
godly deeds; he began to shine with the character of his noble ancestors,
strengthened and schooled by his mother’s pure devices. So every day
his mother rejoiced and readily gave thanks to almighty God who
granted her such offspring along with help from on high. 3 In the 12th
year of his age his mother died and went to the Lord. Orphaned of his
mother, his father having long since closed his eyes, he dwelt in his
parents’ house with his brothers. 2 . Leo III was then ruling the
primatial church of Rome, a pope kind and distinguished. Mindful of
this notable child’s high birth and recalling his parents’ nobility, in great
love he bade him be brought to his presence. When he had been
brought, he began to observe him with a cheerful countenance and an
untroubled mind, and his spirit was exceedingly pleased by him. Then
the prelate gave him over to the Schola Cantorum 4 to learn general
literature and be taught the sweet melodies of chant. This remarkable
and adept boy quickly took in the whole scheme of literary learning so
that he excelled all the children of that Schola. 3. When he heard this,
the excellent pontiff was daily filled with insatiable joy at the pleasing
progress of his childhood. Then he appointed him acolyte in the holy
Roman church. But when in the 20th year of his pontificate he
completed his service, Stephen took on the sacerdotal office of the
Roman church. He too loved him with abundant affection of heart, and
when he observed him nobly and perseveringly nimble in God’s
Scriptures, he straightaway granted him the office of the subdiaconate.
In a brief time the rule of his episcopate was accomplished and Paschal
took on the reins of the church. He consecrated him as priest of St

1 The terminal date is given in AB 847 Nelson 64.

2 Cf. 99:1 and n. 1; 108:1 and n. 1.

3 The statement that God gave her a child with help from on high is decidedly curious
and reflects on the compiler’s contorted style; he may mean that God gave her both the
child and the help to rear it

4 Otherwise the Orphanage ( Orphanotropheum ), which was therefore, as Noble, 229,
points out, not limited to boys from a poor background. Basically it was a school to train
youths to chant in the papal liturgy, not a minor seminary; cf. Leclercq 1950:1008-1013;
Andrieu 1923:235-274. See further n. 46 to c. 24.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Silvester the confessor and pontiffs titulus , 5 a man thoroughly wise, an
ornament of life, learning and character. He outshone everyone in
compassion, endeavour, vigilance and all excellent principles. 4 . On
Paschal’s death Eugene received the prelacy’s pinnacle, and when
Eugene had lasted 3 years in the pontificate, Valentine was consecrated
pontiff of this see; on whose demise Gregory took on the church’s
height. As he loved Sergius attentively, he ordained him archpriest 6 in
the holy church; and when he had expertly governed the church 16 years
he was brought to his end and died.

So when the dignitaries and leaders of the city of Rome and all the
church’s people came together to elect a pontiff, and as usually then
happens they all acclaimed different candidates, by God’s foresight they
were suddenly spurred by God’s will and began attentively to discuss
the archpriest Sergius’s religious quality, so that they all acclaimed him
and said: ‘He is worthy to gain the rule of the pontificate!’ And with
their intention fixed on this man they all went their own ways. 5.
Suddenly 7 a deacon of this church, a certain John, burst out in such
derangement and madness that he won over some naive and rustic folk,
gathered a group of rioters and rebels, and entered the patriarchate by
force, smashing the doors with weapons of war and overstepping the
tradition of law and order. At this deed everyone inside the
patriarchate’s walls was filled with amazement and fear. When this low
gathering of people had stuck with him for the space of an hour, it took
fright, abandoned him, and was nowhere to be seen.

After this all the princes of the Roman citizens were indignant, and
with a single purpose in mind they all hurried, many of them on
horseback, and gathered at St Martin the confessor and pontiffs
basilica. From the church they dragged out the archpriest Sergius whom
we have been dealing with above, a man approved in all virtue. With
great honour, amidst a large escorting assemblage of people and the
resounding of abundant acclamations of praise, with hymns and spiritual
chants he was elected and brought into the Lateran patriarchate. That
same day there was such a heavy snowfall over the city that everyone
beheld it white; many were saying this was a token of joy and
brightness. 6. As for the deacon John, the princes of this city of Rome
expelled him from the patriarchate in great disgrace and instructed that

5 S. Martino ai monti.

f ’ This shows that the archpriest by now was not merely the senior by date of ordination;
cf. 102:4 and n. 6 on the archidiaconate.

7 The wording of the story of John’s attempt on the papacy is modelled closely on
Rufinus, HE 2.10, the account of Ursinus’s competition against Damasus in 366.

104. SERGIUS II

he be put in strict and secure confinement, to deal with that unholy and
dire presumption of utter rashness that this deacon John had dared to
perpetrate. 8 The princes’ preference was that he should be condemned
and deprived of his office in a council of bishops. Indeed some wanted
to use swords to tear him limb from limb and finish him off; but the
kind and expert prelate Sergius forbade this action, unwilling, as the
gospel puts it, to repay anyone evil for evil. 7. At last, with all the
sacerdotes , dignitaries and leading men and all the church’s people
rejoicing, this holy man was ordained and consecrated pontiff in St
Peter’s sacred apostolic see.

He was remarkable for his birth, his purity of faith, his liberality in
preaching, his humility before God and his distinction before men; keen
in appearance he was yet keener in mind; a governor of churches, a
champion of the peoples, a mentor of the poor, a shelter and comforter
of widows, a giver to those in need, a gatherer of the scattered, a
preserver of the gathered; he spumed vain and worldly affairs; wisdom’s
riches alone did he covet and love. 8. When the news of his holy
consecration reached the ears of the unconquered Augustus emperor
Lothar, he sent to Rome Drogo, 9 archbishop of the church of Metz, his
son His Excellency Louis, and a great army of the Franks; and he bade
archbishops and many bishops, abbots and counts to accompany their
journey. 10 These, from the moment they entered the limits of the city of
Bologna 11 with their armed troops, perpetrated such slaughter and
butchery on the people that those who were in the cities and the
countryside were terrified by the tyrannical cruelty, abandoned their own
places, and concealed themselves in secret hide-outs. While they were
wreaking this with savage wickedness in every place and all the cities,
by-ways and fields, they reached Fons Capellae. 12 So calm was the
weather that no one could see a cloud or sign of rain anywhere in the
sky; but suddenly enormously thick black clouds appeared, and while
they were surrounded by storms, tempests and flashes, some of Drogo’s
chief counsellors were smitten and struck down by a bolt of lightning.

8 The language is very close to 96:16, on the imprisonment of the antipope Constantine

II.

9 On Drogo, who was son of Charlemagne, see below cc. 10, 14, and Nelson AB 32 n.l,
49 n. 3, 59 n. 23.

10 The purpose of the mission is the negotiations recounted in cc. 14ff, and, more briefly,
in AB (quoted in n. 22); and see introduction to this life.

" Duchesne noted that for travellers from Pavia through Emilia the territory of Bologna
was the beginning of the papal State.

12 Unidentified. Note that for Fontem Capellae in MS D and printed by Duchesne, MSS
C and E have Pontem Capellae.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Great was the terror that seized all the Franks when they saw this
awesome sight. Even so they would not lay aside their ferocious
purpose, and with atrocious intent they made their way speedily to the
City.

9. When 13 the blessed pope Sergius realized they were coming close,
he sent all the judges to meet His Excellency king Louis at some 9
miles from this city of Rome. They welcomed him with standards and
with great praises resounding. 14 And when he was only a mile or so
away from the City, he sent all the scholae 15 of the militia, along with
the patroni l6 , all chanting praises worthy of the noble king, and with the
other most learned Greeks of the militia' 1 chanting the imperial praises;
with these sweet sounds of praise they gloriously welcomed the king.
His Holiness despatched venerable crosses, that is standards, to meet
him, just as is normal when greeting an emperor or king, and so he had
him welcomed most honourably. 10. King Louis, the moment he
noticed those holy crosses and standards coming to meet him, became
cheerful and mightily glad. Then with his whole people he eagerly made
his way to St Peter’s with all the Roman judges and scholae going
before him. On the Sunday 18 after Pentecost the bountiful pontiff with
his clergy awaited the king on the steps to the apostle’s hall.

When the king arrived, climbing all the steps leading up to St Peter’s
holy church he approached the pontiff where he was waiting in the
atrium at the top of the steps, close to the church doors, 19 with the
whole clergy and Roman people. They embraced each other, king Louis
held the pontiffs right hand, they entered inside the atrium and came
to the silver doors. It was in the atrium that one of the troops, in the

13 From this point through to c. 11, the language is closely modelled on 97:37-38,
Hadrian Vs reception of Charlemagne in 774. A similar procession came to meet him
again before his coronation in 800, ARF 800 Scholz 80, cf. LP 98:21.

14 The laudes , a technical phrase, twice in this chapter, and in c. 11; see 98 n. 61, citing
Kantorowicz 1946; at 71 and 76-84 he discusses the role of laudes in Frankish rulership;
see too McCormick 1966:362-383; also AF 896 Reuter 133 on the coronation of Amulf;
and perhaps LP 108:25 (praise of Basil I).

15 The companies of the exercitus Romanus; perhaps also the four scholae peregrinorum
of the Vatican; cf. 97:35 with n. 54.

16 Cf. the same note.

17 The schola Graecorum.

18 8 June 844. Not until the 14th century would this day be celebrated at Rome as Trinity
Sunday.

19 It is clear that the atrium refers here to the platform at the top of the steps and in front
of the gatehouse (the ‘church doors 1 , S. Maria in Turn) of St Peter’s; they then entered
through this into the colonnaded area (confusingly also called an atrium, cf. 103 n. 80)
and came across this to the silver doors of the basilica itself.

104. SERGIUS II

sight of all the Franks, was seized by a demon and much troubled. 11.
Then the bountiful prelate had all St Peter’s doors shut and ordered
them to be bolted; on the admonishment of the Holy Ghost he thus
addressed the king: Tf you have come here with pure purpose and
sincere intent and for the safety of the State and of the whole City and
of this church, enter these doors at my bidding. But if you have not,
these doors will be opened to you neither by me nor by my licence.’
The king immediately replied, telling him he had come with no evil
purpose or any perverseness or bad intention. Then at the prelate’s
bidding, with hands held out they opened the doors and in this way they
entered St Peter’s venerable hall. The whole clergy and all God’s
servants the monks chanted praise to God and His Excellency, loudly
acclaiming: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ etc. 20
And so the king, all the bishops, abbots and judges, and all the Franks
who had accompanied him, came with the pontiff close to St Peter’s
confessio. There they prostrated themselves and gave thanks to our God
almighty and to the prince of the apostles. The pontiff gave out the
prayer over the people, and they all returned from the church.

12 . But afterwards on each of the days following they oppressed all
the suburbs with pestilential devastation and they fell on the fields,
crops and meadows like a thunderbolt. Meanwhile the God-protected
pontiff heard from certain men that they wanted to come inside this
world-renowned city for hospitality’s sake, but he had the gates barred
and bolted, and refused to allow it.

13 . The following Sunday, 21 all the archbishops, bishops and abbots,
and all the Franks who had come with him, again gathered in the prince
of the apostle’s basilica along with ail the noble and distinguished
Romans. Then the bountiful pontiff with his own hands anointed the
emperor’s son Louis with holy oil, crowned him with a royal and
precious crown and made him king of the Lombards. He gave him a
royal sword and bade him gird it on himself. When the celebration of
mass was done they all returned from the church in gladness with the
king.

14 . But thereafter, 22 Drogo, 23 archbishop of the church of Metz, whom

20 Ps. 117(118)26; Mt21.9, 23.39; Mk 11.9-10; Lk 13.35, 19.38; Jn 12.13.

21 If the LP is right about the date this will be 15 June 844; but the LP is wrong about
the order of events, cf. n. 22, where are quoted the accounts in AB and in Pseudo-
Liutprand. Some of the language of the present chapter is borrowed from 98:22-24, the
account of Charlemagne’s coronation by Leo III.

22 The account of these negotiations in the LP is composed with what Duchesne described
as great reserve: we are told it was lively and Sergius won it, but not what it was about.
The order of events in the LP is: crowning of Louis, discussions, swearing of oath to

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

we have mentioned above, was each day stirring up conflict and serious
contention against the holy prelate, all the bishops and all our leading
men and dignitaries, and not only Drogo but all the archbishops and
bishops who, without any licence or summons from a metropolitan, had
joined with him against this universal church, the head of all the
churches, namely: the archbishops George of Ravenna and Angilbert of
Milan, the bishops 24 Joseph of Ivrea, Aginus of Bergamo, Amalric of
Como, Nortcaud of Vercelli, Sigifrid of Reggio, Toringar of Concordia,
Odelbert of Acqui, Ambrose of Lucca, John of Pisa, Peter of Volterra,
Gausprand of Pistoia, Cantio of Siena, Lupus of Teate 25 , Sisimund of
Aprutium 26 , Picco of Ascoli, Fratellus of Camerino, Gisus of Fermo,
Racipert of Nocera, Amadeus of Penne, Donatus of Fiesole and others;
and with them in the contest were the counts Boso, 27 Adalgis, 28 John,

Lothar. But AB 844 Nelson 57 puts the discussions before the crowning: ‘Lothar sent his
son Louis to Rome with Drogo bishop of Metz: they were to take measures to prevent any
future pope being consecrated there, on his predecessor’s death, except on Lothar’s orders
and in the presence of his representatives. They reached Rome and were received with due
honour by the pope, who, when the negotiations had been concluded, consecrated Louis
king by anointing him, and invested him with a sword.’ And Ps.-Liutprand {PL 129.1244)
also disagrees with the order of events in the LP, giving the oath of loyalty to Lothar,
discussions, crowning of Louis: ‘(Louis and Drogo) after bringing much loss onto the
Romans made them swear loyalty to the emperor, and after many conflicts they at length
confirmed Sergius in the see , and he anointed the emperor’s son as king of the Lombards’.
This is the only explicit statement that the discussions were an inquiry into Sergius’s
election. But Pseudo-Liutprand’s testimony should not, in my view, be rated too highly;
he was summarizing the LP itself, and perhaps over-hastily. The LP is vague about the
pope’s victory, but it must be talking about this debate, and the conciliar trappings with
which it surrounds the affair confirm this: there was no need of a council for the other
points at issue. Louis’s crowning must have followed the discussions which confirmed the
pope in office; the LP has altered the order of events.

23 At some stage in a letter (MGH Ep 5.583, J2586) to the transalpine bishops Sergius
granted an enlarged metropolitan status (‘his vicar in charge of all the provinces beyond
the Alps’) to Drogo; he granted him the power to convene general synods; whatever was
decided in a provincial synod held by Drogo must be brought to the pope’s notice without
delay; anyone needing to appeal to the holy see must first submit himself to a hearing by
Drogo; anyone not following this advice would never be rashly absolved by the pope
unless the case had been first aired in a provincial synod and then in a general hearing by
Drogo; and he exhorted the bishops to concord. Cf. introduction to this life and AB 844
Nelson 57: ‘Bishop Drogo was designated papal vicar in the regions of the Gauls and
Germanies’; the vicariate may reflect the ambitions of Lothar to intervene in the church
affairs of his brothers’ kingdoms, but little came of it (Nelson, citing Devisse 1975:35-52).

24 The bishops, none of whose sees was then in the papal State, are listed in roughly
geographical order: northern Italy (Ivrea to Acqui), Tuscany (Lucca to Siena, with Fidsole
misplaced), and the duchy of Spoleto (Chieti to Penne).

25 Chieti.

26 T6ramo (in the Abruzzi).

27 See 107:48 with n. 101 for Boso’s identity; he is generally assumed to be the father
of the Boso there mentioned.

28 Scarcely the Adalgis who was later duke of Benevento {AB 871 Nelson 176 n. 14);

104. SERGIUS II

Vuldo, Bernard, 29 Wifrid and Maurinus, and others too. But God’s grace
inspired this bountiful pontiff and they could not overcome his words
and wisdom; so great a strength was in him from on high that there was
no argument they could use to trap him or force him to submit.
Defeated by him they gave way, full of shame and confusion. Seeing
this, they entirely laid aside all the anger and ferocity they were
harbouring in their minds.

15. When this was over, they asked the pontiff that all the leading
Romans should promise loyalty to king Louis under oath. This the wise
prelate refused to grant, but thus addressed them: ‘If you want them to
take this oath to the great emperor lord Lothar alone, I agree and allow
it; but neither I nor any of the Roman nobles agree to this being done
for his son Louis’. Then at length, when they were all seated in that
church, the blessed pontiff, 30 the great king and all the archbishops and
bishops, with the rest of the sacerdotes and the leading Romans and
Franks in attendance, promised loyalty to the great emperor Lothar, ever
Augustus.

16. Next a certain Ebbo and Bartholomew, 31 archbishops who had

perhaps the one who was count of Parma by the 830s (Wickham 1981:57).

29 Probably the same as the Frankish count Bernard much involved in life 106:8-20; not
the Bernard killed at Poitou in 844 (see Nelson, AB 58 n. 7, 122 n. 3, 151 n. 21).

30 Duchesne noted that at this point the pope completes the formality of the oath to the
emperor, no doubt omitted at the moment of his installation. But see n. 22.

31 Ebbo (c. 775-851) was archbishop of Rheims, Bartholomew of Narbonne. Ebbo had
been chosen by Louis to evangelize the Danes, and had visited Rome in 822 (see p. 2);
Paschal had commissioned him and appointed him papal legate for the north. Both
archbishops had been implicated in Lothar’s revolt and the deposition of Louis. On
Louis’s reinstatement, Ebbo, at Metz, acknowledged his involvement and that the
reinstatement of Louis was right; then in a council at Thionville Ebbo confessed to capital
crime and gave his resignation in writing {AB 835 Nelson 32-3); Bartholomew was also
removed, but neither prelate was immediately replaced. No doubt it was true, as later
alleged, that the depositions were on Louis’s orders, but canonical procedures had been
followed (Nelson 33 n. 3). It was later claimed, very dubiously, that Gregory IV (J2585;
Mansi 15.794, letter to pope Nicholas; cf. Hincmar’s letters to Anastasius, Egilo and
Nicholas) confirmed Ebbo as bishop of Hildesheim; but this is hardly consistent with
Sergius now receiving him and Bartholomew into lay communion only. Both Rheims and
Narbonne were now in Charles the Bald’s kingdom; for Lothar to secure from Sergius the
reinstatement of the archbishops would have been a great coup for him. But Drogo, now
present, had presided at Thionville and was unlikely to support that council’s ruling being
overturned; and Sergius may have regarded the request as inopportune so soon after the
sons of Louis had reached a peace agreement. By 846 Ebbo was competing for his former
see with Hincmar (J2589-90, letters of Hincmar, Mansi 15.776-7), whose ambitions were
not such that he could easily brook competition; and by 849 Lothar had reopened the issue
of Ebbo’s deposition to embarrass Charles {AB 849 Nelson 67 n. 1). Even after his death,
Ebbo’s irregular situation produced doubts about the validity of the ordinations he
conducted after his deposition; Hincmar would not acknowledge these and in a synod he
deposed all the priests, deacons and subdeacons concerned {AB 853 Nelson 76). Benedict

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

been deprived of office and expelled from the church for their crimes,
asked the holy pontiff to see fit to reconcile them and grant them the
pallium. The prelate pronounced them unworthy to receive communion
among the clerics; they might have leave only to communicate among
the ordinary people.

17. While king Louis was then living at Rome, Siconulf* 2 prince of
the Beneventans came to Rome with a great army. 33 The king received
him with honour, and he then declared to him everything for which he
had come. With joyous spirit the king granted and allowed him
everything he had asked for. Since the Franks, Lombards and
Beneventans had all gathered together, the crowd of people became so
huge that Rome was surrounded on every side: their great numbers
destroyed all the crops. Siconulf s heart was burning with desire to see
the distinguished pontiff and receive his blessing. The prelate received
him, and prostrate on the ground he kissed his precious feet in humility.
Receiving his blessing he cheerfully retired from his sight, giving thanks
to God.

18. When all this was completed, His Excellency king Louis returned
in great gladness to Pavia, from which capital he ruled since the start of
his princedom. Then all the senate and people of Rome with their wives
and children, glad at their deliverance from the enormous plague and
yoke of tyrannical frightfulness, revered the holy prelate Sergius as the

II/ and Nicholas both confirmed this (AB 866 Nelson 132). The issue came to a head
when one of the clerics, Wulfad, was a candidate for the archbishopric of Bourges. For
the sequel see pp. 195-7.

32 I adopt this spelling as in the MSS and in Erchampert, not Siginulf as in AB.

33 On the death of Sicard (840), the last Lombard prince who had governed the whole
duchy of Benevento, his successor Radelgis had to fight a competitor Siconulf, who
founded at Salerno a principality to rival Benevento, and then tried to reunite the ancient
duchy under himself. Lothar and Louis regarded Siconulf as a usurper. Erchampert
(Historia Langobardorum Beneverttartorum 17-18) states that after taking from Radelgis
all the towns and fortresses except Sipontum, he laid siege to Benevento and meanwhile
asked his kinsman Guy duke of Spoleto for help. Guy sided with Radelgis and told
Siconulf to abandon the siege, which the latter did; out of avarice Guy offered to change
sides, but Radelgis prevented this with 70,000 gold coins; ‘After this Guy persuaded
Siconulf to give him 50,000 gold nummi for the unification of the Beneventan province,
and said ‘I will make you obtain it on all sides; you may measure it as in your palm’.
Then, consenting to his plan, he went to Rome, gave over the gold coins, exchanged
oaths, achieved nothing and came away empty-handed’. War continued between Siconulf
and Radelgis, providing excellent opportunities for the Saracens near Benevento.
Erchampert does not mention any involvement between Siconulf and Lothar or Louis. But
AB 844 (Nelson 57-58) recounts the same affair with a different slant: ‘Siginulf, Duke of
the Beneventans, made his submission to Lothar along with all his men, and as a self-
imposed penalty gave him 100,000 gold pieces. The Beneventans, who had previously
bestowed their loyalties elsewhere, when they found out about this accepted Siginulf and
applied themselves to driving the remnants of the Saracens out of their territory. 1

104. SERGIUS II

author of their salvation and the restorer of peace. But he attributed
what had happened to no power of his own but to the gift of God.

19. Now since language does not suffice to arrange a full account of
all he achieved, let us pass on to what he presented to the holy places,
and begin to outline it.

[A.D. 844:]

At the very start of his pontificate, burning with love from on high,
he completed a work of wondrous beauty in the Saviour’s basilica called
Constantinian. For the circuit 34 of the holy altar therein had formerly
been constructed narrowly; with his own hand he traced it out wider and
he finished it from the foundations and splendidly adorned it with
beautiful columns with carved marble round them on top; and there the
holy people have space to stand in while the sacred office is directed.
This completed, to adorn and decorate this conspicuous work this
bountiful pontiff presented in the same basilica 20 white all-silk veils,
decorated around with interwoven gold, and 20 other most excellent
gold-interwoven ones decorated around with purple. There too 35 with
Christ’s cooperation he constructed a wondrous confessio and
resplendently embellished it with silver panels and with swathing in
gold; with his own hands he consecrated it and put the relics in place.
He performed another excellent work outside the doors of this venerable
church: 36 the holy thresholds were formerly hidden from the people, and

34 Ambitus is probably technical, as in 103:31-2 (with n. 70). As far as we know the
arrangement changed by Sergius had subsisted since Constantine built the basilica; the
circuit of the presbyterium where the ‘holy people' (the clergy; see 102 n. 14) found
themselves too restricted was now enlarged and rearranged to Sergius’s own design
(Krautheimer, Corpus 5.10). The usual arrangement was a colonnade surmounted by an
entablature (‘columns with marble on top round them’); the 20 pairs of veils were hung
in the intercolumniations. These works will not have outlasted the construction of a
transept at the end of the 13th century, if they survived that long.

35 Sergius next excavated a confessio in front of and beneath the altar, consecrating it by
depositing relics as was now usual. Like all ancient cathedrals, the Lateran will almost
certainly have had no relics in its altar before this time. Sergius’s confessio seems to be
represented by the confessio below the present altar.

36 Krautheimer, Corpus 5.85, remarks that this passage is obscure. Some kind of
construction, which hid the doors, seems to have risen in front of the church to the east,
and Sergius replaced it with some sort of arcade. The text does not mention an atrium.
Krautheimer cites Alexander 1970:28Iff, especially 284ff, for the valid point that there
is proof neither of the presence nor of the absence of a Constantinian atrium at the
Lateran; this leaves Duchesne’s suggestion that the basilica’s doors had previously opened
into a colonnaded portico uncertain. There is a reference to an atrium at 97:70, but
Krautheimer thinks the LP may there be referring to colonnades and atria at the palace
rather than at the basilica; since, however, they are mentioned between the basilica and
the baptistery this seems to me unlikely, though not impossible. The construction need not
be Constantinian but I accept that there was an atrium by the 9th century. After Sergius
H’s time, about 960, a chapel of St Thomas was built into the southern end of the narthex:

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

with great endeavour he rendered them visible to all when he
constructed there from the foundations beautifully adorned arches; and
these he magnificently adorned with various pictures.

20. For the cure and future reward of his soul this God-protected and
distinguished pontiff magnificently and conspicuously decorated the
vault of our Lord Jesus Christ’s Manger, 37 which is connected to God’s
holy mother our lady’s basilica which everyone calls Major, 38 with
silver and gilded panels representing the Lord’s incarnation and God’s
blessed mother Mary’s birth; 39 for a period of many years none of the
pontiffs had thought to bring it to the appearance 40 of such great beauty.

{21. 41 This 42 holy prelate, realizing like a kind and dutiful pastor that
the aqueduct Jovia had lain demolished for a period of years and was
fully ruined, restored it afresh; and there gushed forth a great abundance
of water which satisfied almost the whole city.}

[A.D. 844-45:]

{22. In his time 43 the river called Tiber left its channel and spread
over the plains. It swelled in great spate on 22 November in the 8th

it included, on the east, an earlier triple arcade on piers and columns which has been taken
to be the remains of a Constantinian atrium. The north wall of St Thomas’s chapel was
in line with the south colonnade of the nave and seems originally to have carried the
springing of groin vaults and to have had a matching wall further north. Though all is
mysterious, Krautheimer suggests there was a vaulted propylon, open to the east (i.e. with
arched entrances through its wall), fronting and sheltering the sacra limina , the actual
doors into the basilica. There were three doors into the basilica’s nave (and none into the
four aisles), and all three could have been behind such a propylon. A propylon of this
kind could have been incorporated into the colonnade of an atrium if or when one was
built, but Sergius now removed it and completed the colonnade in front of the doors,
making the doors more visible than before. St Thomas’s chapel survived the rebuilding
of the rest of the portico (1159-1181) by Nicolaus Angeli, but with Angeli’s portico it was
demolished to make way for the present (1732) facade by Galilei.

* 7 On this chapel see 100:37.

,x The first use of this name in the LP, though only in a casual mention; the LP’s
medieval continuations first use it in the life of Gregory VII. Unofficially it goes back to
the Epitome de locis sanctis (CChr 175, 321.172: ‘the Basilica which is called S. Maria
Maior’) at the same time as the designation Ad Praesepe\ cf. 92:8 with n. 30.

59 This ought to mean the Virgin’s own birth, but after the mention of the incarnation
Christ’s birth from the Virgin must be meant.

40 Elsewhere (98:31) species in such contexts seems to mean value.

41 From here on Duchesne distributes his text into 2 columns, the left with the text of the
Famesi MS (E 5 ), the right with that of the other MSS. In what follows, curly brackets
enclose what is in the earlier Famesi text only, italics are used for what is in the later text
only, and ordinary type is used for what is common to both. On the insight this textual
tradition gives into die compilation of the LP see p. 71.

42 The language of this chapter is closely based on 97:65, dealing with Hadrian I’s repairs
to the Aqua Virgo. On the Aqua Jovia see 97:61 with n. 117.

47 This chapter is closely modelled on 91:6 and (its derivative) 97:94-5.

104. SERGIUS II

indiction [844], a Saturday, the birthday of St Caecilia the martyr. It
entered the Roman city by the postern 44 called St Agatha’s at the first
hour of the day. Meanwhile in some places it even overlapped the city
walls and it reached St Laurence’s church called Lucina’s. From there
it entered God’s holy ever-virgin mother’s on the Via Lata and then
crossed to St Mark’s. It extended itself through the streets, desolated
fields, uprooting trees. That night-time removed the water and the river
returned to its own channel.}

23. As this prelate was careful in his anxiety for all the churches, 45 he
completed from its foundations, more expansive than it had formerly
been, the holy Archangel’s basilica established on the summit of Monte
Fagano; he bade it be brightly painted with radiant pictures, and he
freshly restored its roofing; there he presented {these gifts}: 4 cloths of
ymizinum; also 4 veils.

24. The Schola Cantorum formerly called the Orphanage 46 through its

44 Cf. LP 54:3, BP 47 where the postern is unnamed, though possibly St Agatha’s is
intended. It was located in the city-wall along the Tiber close to the Mausoleum of
Augustus. Duchesne here summarizes Corvisieri’s discussion of this postern. It recurs
under the same name in accounts of floods under Benedict III (106:23) and Nicholas
(107:15); also in a bull of Agapitus II in 955; and one of John XII in 962 calls it ‘the
ancient postern which was once styled that of St Agatha’. Another bull of John XII in 956
mentions ‘the postern of St Martin’, apparently the same as St Agatha’s; the change of
name came from a nearby church of St Martin not otherwise mentioned till 1026; then a
donation in 1045 mentions this as St Martin’s church near the ‘postern of William’,
evidently yet another name for the same postern. Cencius calls this church St Martin de
pila\ it also appears as ‘of (or close to) the river’, but usually, as in the Turin Catalogue,
as ‘of the postern’. Destroyed in the 16th century and rebuilt with the double dedication
to SS Roche and Martin, it is the present S. Rocco a Ripetta (cf. Hiilsen, Chiese , 385-6).
The other posterns mentioned in the LP, the Holy Angel’s and the Saxons’ (105:73), were
gates in the wall of the Leonine City, not that of Rome.

45 2 Cor. 11.28.

46 Orphanotropheum\ mentioned as the Schola Cantorum in c. 2 above; it recurs as the
Orphanotropheum at 112:17. The Liber Diurnus, ed. Foerster, 176f, 262f, 41 Of (V97 =
C91 = A86), has a Privilegium- formula dealing with the recovery of lands wrongly taken
from the Orfanotrofium\ it includes the remark: ‘and when defeated by want the place was
in straits, the children ceased to frequent it as provision of their expenses was missing;
therefore in case the order of singers should be lacking and God’s church suffer insult
from this...’ This confirms the implication in the LP that the Orphanage was or had
become a choir-school; cf. Registrum Sublacense n. 112 p. 159, a charter of 919,
mentioning John, subdeacon of the Roman church and primicerius of the Schola Cantorum
called the Orphanotrophium. The Schola is mentioned in a letter of pope Paul to Pepin
(J2371, CC 41, MGH Ep 3.553), and in the various 8th- and 9th-century Ordines. John
the Deacon ( Vita Greg 2.6) attributes its foundation to Gregory I, but this may be no
more than a 9th-century inference from the supposed origin of Gregorian chant. As the
LP says, the Schola had a chapel to St Stephen; this is still mentioned in Cencius’s Ordo
at the end of the 12th century (Hiilsen, Chiese , 479). The Schola was suppressed in 1370
(so Hiilsen). The Turin Catalogue notes that its chapel was destroyed, but locates it
between the churches of St Matthew and St Bartholomew, both in the Via Merulana.
Though the site of the latter of these churches is unknown, the statement is enough to

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

great age {had now decayed and} was almost in ruin and broken {for
a long time}; this bountiful and blessed pope, God’s clemency willing
it, freshly restored it from its foundations, an improvement on what it
had been. {Also, in St Stephen the first martyr’s oratory in that Schola,
he provided 1 gold-interwoven veil with a tyrian fringe; there too he
provided a fine silver paten and chalice which together weigh 2 lb 2
oz.}

25. St Romanus the martyr’s basilica 47 not far from the City outside
the Salarian Gate {for a long time had grown old and was almost on the
point of collapse; by his loving effort he constucted it in opus
Signinum} he completed it from the foundations. He decreed it to be a
paroecia 48 of SS Silvester and Martin’s titulus {and there he placed 1
gold-interwoven cloth with a purple fringe}.

[A.D. 845-46:]

In the Lateran patriarchate in St Caesarius the martyr’s oratory 49
situated in the vestiarium, this God-protected, venerable and
distinguished pontiff provided 5 silk veils, one of purple, decorated
around with fourfold weave, two of fourfold weave decorated with
tyrian, and two of tyrian decorated with byzantine purple.

He 50 built St Theodore the martyr’s basilica in the territory of Cora
30 miles from Rome , and he splendidly adorned it with bright pictures.

{26. Bathed in the Holy Ghost’s enlightenment, this holy prelate

indicate that the Schola was in the ‘papal quarter’ of Rome, and close to the Lateran.
Further references to the Schola and its primicerius in Kehr 1906:1.17-18.

47 No such basilica is mentioned in the 7th-century itineraries or in the 12th- to 15th-
century catalogues; outside the LP, it occurs only in Bosio’s text of the saint’s acts; but
the acts derive from the Passio Laurenti , whose ordinary text merely says that the saint
was beheaded outside the Salarian Gate, and says nothing of a church there. The only
martyr Romanus in the itineraries is one in the De locis sanctis, the I tin. Malm, and the
Notitia Ecclesiarum ; he was buried at or near S. Lorenzo on the Via Tiburtina, and the
Notitia puts him ‘at a distance in a cave below’. If this was an underground chapel, it may
be to it that the LP refers; if so. Via Salaria is a slip. Or if Sal aria is correct, the
dedication is an error for one of the many groups of martyrs buried outside the Salarian
Gate.

48 Since at least the 5th century the cemeterial basilicas had been juridically attached to
the city tituli , which provided clergy for services (cf. LP 42:7 BP 33, S. Agnese assigned
to the titulus Vestinae). But it is doubtful if the same connexion is meant here, as by now
the cemeteries were no longer used for burials; Duchesne suggested that a real rural
‘parish’ centred on St Romanus’s church was meant, juridically attached to and managed
by SS Martin and Silvester, but with its own clergy (as is implied by the term paroecia).
Later, similar parishes would be formed round small churches within Rome, and attached
to the ancient tituli or even to deaconries; but this division inside the city does not seem
to date as far back as the 9th century.

49 Previously mentioned in the LP at 86:2 (BP 83) and 96:9, and earlier by Gregory I,
Ep. 13.1. The location is uncertain.

50 The earlier recension has St Theodore’s at Cora (otherwise unknown) in c. 30.

104. SERGIUS II

provided on the high altar in the basilica of his mentor St Peter prince
of the apostles a gold-studded cloth representing the Saviour our Lord
Jesus Christ sitting on a throne and around him angels standing with the
apostles.}

(30.) In 51 St Peter the apostle's basilica he provided a gold-studded
cloth representing the Saviour in the middle and on his right and left
glittering figures of all the holy apostles , and he decorated it with very
precious jewels , prases and jacinths.

{27. In God’s mother St Mary’s church in Arranum 52 this
distinguished prelate provided a fine silver-gilt paten and chalice,
weighing together 2 lb 1 Vi oz.}

{Christ’s confessor 53 and pontiff St Martin’s church, built a long time
ago, was now suffering fatigue from its great age so that collapse to its
foundations was threatening its ruin; this venerable pontiff anticipating
its ruin and applying care to that church, often being on the watch there,
shifted and erected it in another place 54 not far away, an improvement
on what it had formerly been. 55 28. This 56 holy and distinguished

51 This is the later recension’s version of c. 26.

52 Unless this is an unknown church at an unidentifiable place, read in Narrano for in
Arrano\ for St Mary’s ‘at Moreno called Narrano’ see 105:62 and n. 92.

53 cc. 27b - 29 of the Famesi recension are equivalent to cc. 31-32 in the later version.
The whole passage (down to ‘pleasing to God’ in c. 29) is lifted from 100:8-9, Paschal’s
rebuilding of S. Prassede. The later recension rewrote it, probably because the reference
to a change of site was false (though see next note). Both versions give the ‘official’ view,
whereas c. 41 claims that the church was destroyed merely to allow Sergius’s brother
Benedict to enrich himself. Under Leo III the church had been (for a short time) a
deaconry (98:45 with n. 100), but was a titulus again by the time Paschal made the future
Sergius II its priest, c. 3 above; cf. HUlsen, Chiese , 282-3.

54 The claim that the site was moved is not in the later recension, and this may affect any
estimate of the relative value of the two recensions. The problem is that nothing is known
of the size or shape of Symmachus’s church below it or of the titulus Equitii below that
(the 6-bay hall to the west is not the titulus Equitii , but it may have been the titulus
Silvestri)\ Krautheimer, Corpus 3.124, remarks that, if there is any truth in the change of
site, Sergius’s church may have had a slightly different axis from Symmachus’s church.
Older writers were wrong to believe that Sergius merely modified the previous church;
it is certain that Sergius’s structure was new (Silvagni 1913:384-8; Kirsch 1918:41-45;
Vielliard 1931; and next note).

55 Krautheimer, Corpus 3.93-124, comments that much of the 9th-century exterior of S.
Martino is still visible: the apse with the north wall, the east clerestory wall, and the lower
courses of the side wall of the east aisle. Inside there is much baroque overlay, but the
original structure essentially survives: the shafts and capitals of 12 columns each side of
the nave, and almost all their bases. The present crypt probably replaced an annular crypt-
passage (like that at S. Marco), and the relic-chamber survives. The basilica is on an
artificial platform with ‘Servian’ foundations; the interior is 26.40 m wide and 41 m long
(the apse, projecting to the north, a further 12'/2 m). The nave has a clear width of 13.50
m; the aisles, including column-widths, exactly half that. Before the floor was lowered 60
cm in the 17th century, the nave was 15.40 m high. The external walls of the aisles, and
the clerestory walls, are 0.65 m thick. The 24 Corinthian columns have 20 Corinthian and

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

pontiff sought out, found and collected many bodies of saints lying in
destroyed cemeteries, with that dutiful concern that they should not
remain in neglect; with great affection and veneration he removed and
buried them in the church of Christ’s confessor and pontiff St Martin,
which he had wonderfully renewed and constructed, with the assistance
of all the Romans, priests, deacons and clerics, chanting psalms of
praise to God. 29. And while these inner cares of the holy and angelic
prelate’s heart were afoot, in his anxiety to gain aid before the Lord
almighty by the prayers of those whose holy bodies were buried
therein, 57 who beyond the stars are unceasingly pleasing to God, in the
same venerable church he provided windows in the apse, which he
adorned with glass and various colours; 58 and he decorated the
presbyterium with carved marble. 59 In the same church he provided a
fine silver canopy with four porphyry columns, weighing 810 lb. 60 }

{30. The venerable and distinguished pontiff built St Theodore the
martyr’s basilica in the territory of Cora about 30 miles from Rome and
he splendidly adorned it with bright pictures; and there he provided 1
gold-interwoven cloth.}

31. These 61 things thoroughly finished, this God-protected and blessed
pope, anxious in godly devotion to gain the desirable love of SS
Silvester and Martin, completed from its foundations , God’s clemency

4 composite capitals; they are monoliths with various shafts: 2 cipollino, 5 pavonazzetto,
6 of a dark grey, heavily-veined marble, probably from Teos, and 11 of Thasos marble;
all are 4.70 m high, 0.60 m in diameter; capitals and columns are ancient spoils, from
more than one building. There was once a square atrium, built on ‘Servian’ blocks. The
church is a perfect example of the latter part of the Carolingian Renaissance in Rome.
Entablature over the columns, an atrium, and (probably) an annular crypt, are also found
at SS Quattro Coronati, rebuilt at just this date; and they still recall S. Prassede and S.
Stefano degli Abessini at the start of the renascence. Technical characteristics (double
window-voussoirs, size and spacing of windows, undulating brick courses) are exactly
parallel to the other Roman churches of the period, S. Prassede, SS Nereo e Achilleo, S.
Maria Nova, and the Carolingian parts of SS Quattro Coronati.

56 The earlier recension has lifted the language of this chapter and the beginning of the
next almost entirely from 100:9, Paschal’s burial of relics at S. Prassede.

57 ‘therein’ translates ibidem from the source passage 100:9, which is better sense than
quidem here.

58 i. e. stained-glass windows (Krautheimer).

54 These works were in the apse rather than the presbyterium according to the later
recension. The decorations were only completed under Leo IV (see 105:98), whose
inscription (n. 72 below) claims that Sergius had died before he could confer any decor
on the church, and (despite c. 39) that Leo founded the monastery.

60 The altar still had four columns in Ugonio’s time (1588), but they were ‘mischio’;
either they were later replacements for those of the 9th century or the LP uses ‘porphyry’
loosely (Krautheimer).

61 cc. 31 - 32 are the second recension’s version of cc. 27b - 29.

104. SERGIUS II

willing it, the church which had been consecrated to their holy name,
improving its condition and its beauty; from the start of his sacerdotal
office he had strenuously governed it until he was brought to the
pinnacle of the pontificate; it had from ancient times given way and
decayed from age, and damaged a long time ago it stayed broken in
ruins. With great love he depicted its apse in gold colours on the
overlaid mosaic . 32, For almighty God's honour, he dedicated and

placed under the holy altar 62 all these: the same prelate St Silvester’s
body with the martyrs and pontiffs SS Fabian, Stephen and Soter; the
martyr Asterius with his holy daughter, and SS Cyriac, Maurus, Largus
and Smaragdus; the pontiffs Anastasius and Innocentius; the bishops SS
Quirinus and Leo; the martyrs Artemius, Sisianus, Pollio, Theodore,
Nicander, Crescentianus and with them the virgin martyrs SS Soteris,
Paulina, Memmia, Juliana, Quirilla, Theopiste, Sophia; the widow St
Cyriaca; with many others whose names are known to God alone 62

{33. In SS Silvester and Martin the confessors and pontiffs’ church
he presented:} When this was wondrously finished, with joyful spirit and
concerned intention he presented in this church these things to stay
there for ever: a very precious gold crown with jewels, prases, jacinths
and pearls, which is still seen hanging over the altar, with a fine gold
cross in the middle, also with precious jewels; also 4 fine silver bowls
swathed in gold, hanging before the holy altar’s vestibule, 64 and 2
chased gilded bowls with pommels 65 ; 2 gold crosses with most excellent
jewels, and one other silver cross. In the same basilica he presented 3
censers overlaid with gold colour; 2 patens of fine silver and gilded; 1
silver cullender, 66 gilded, used in the sacred office; 1 {fine} silver crown
with bells, with in the middle a cross with a dove.

34. There too, burning with love from on high this blessed pope

62 The relic-chamber is still preserved, a small room 2.9 by 2.5 m, 1.6 m external height,
with a barred opening on the north side, and lined with slabs carved with typically 9th-
century interlaced ornament (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.111).

63 Even if this list is of no genuine martyrological value it does show what relics 9th-
century contemporaries believed were deposited. The LP text is the origin of a 17th-
century inscription listing relics (copied from one of the 13th century), now fixed to the
wall of the crypt in S. Martino (Krautheimer, Corpus 3.91; cf. Armellini-Cecchelli
I.2671T).

64 Krautheimer thinks that ‘vestibule’ means the space enclosed by the pergola (which
bordered the chancel); from Peruzzi’s pre-baroque drawing of 1550 it appears that it was
three-sided and made up of six columns; of the six, four spanned the nave and two stood
behind at the sides.

65 Perhaps the pommels ( bullae ) on these lighting-fixtures are solid handles of some kind.

66 colalorium\ evidently the provision of wine by the communicants at the offertory was
still a living ceremony at this date; the wine needed straining.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

presented silver handbasins, 3 pairs; 2 {3 fine} silver pint-pots 67 ; 4 great
silver crowns, with dolphins, weighing .. lb; 2 chalices of {fine} silver
and gilded; {1} great silver paten swathed in gold, with a representation
of our Lord Jesus Christ in the middle; 3 pairs candlesticks silvered on
top; 3 silver canisters; 1 silver paten with chalice; l silver scyphus
weighing.. lb.

For the honour of this venerable basilica he presented 12 brass
chandeliers; 6 pairs railings, also of brass.

For the glory and honour of the holy confessors we have mentioned
above, this distinguished and venerable prelate provided a fine silver
canopy weighing .. lb. He magnificently decorated the holy altar's
confessio with silver panels swathed in gold ’ weighing .. lb, so that he
might by their holy intercessions possess the joys of the ethereal
kingdom . There too this merciful and kind bishop presented 3 images of
silver and swathed in gold, one of them with the representation of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the other two with that of SS Silvester and Martin,
set over the holy altar's vestibule . 68

35. In the same basilica he presented a gold-studded cloth,
representing the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, with jewels,
prases, jacinths and pearls. He provided another very precious gold-
studded gold-interwoven cloth with a representation of the Saviour our
Lord Jesus Christ in the middle and on his right and left representations
of SS Silvester and Martin, also with jewels, prases, jacinths and pearls.
The holy prelate also offered 3 alexandrian {crowns} curtains 69 woven
with most precious work; 24 gold-interwoven veils, decorated round
with {byzantine} purple, which hang in this basilica’s arches; 70 15 other
gold-interwoven veils with a purple fringe; 4 white all-silk veils
surrounding the altar, 71 one of them with a cross in the middle and gold-
studded chevrons, the others decorated round with {byzantine} purple.

{36. There too he provided another all-silk gold-studded cloth, with
roses, representing the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; and 1 other
red cloth with a white winged horse, with a gold-studded fringe, 4
chevrons and a gold-studded cross. In the same church this holy prelate

67 sextaria : cf. sextarium at 112:19 and the glossary s.v. ‘pint’.

69 Krautheimer thinks that these were reliefs, and that they seem to have been over the
entablature surmounting the pergola (‘vestibule’, cf. n. 64).

69 The later recension was no doubt right to emend ‘crowns’ to ‘curtains’. Crowns (lights)
can hardly have been woven, and ‘alexandrian’ is an adjective for textiles.

70 Two further sets of 24 curtains occur in c. 36. There were 13, not 12,
intercolumniations each side, and Krautheimer (Corpus 3.119) suggests that for liturgical
purposes those nearest the altar were left uncurtained.

71 i. e. for the altar-canopy mentioned in c. 29A = 34B.

104. SERGIUS II

provided 3 images of fine silver-gilt, one with the face of the Lord
Saviour, the other two with the faces of the confessors SS Silvester and
Martin, set over the holy altar’s vestibule. There too he provided 24
great gold-interwoven veils, and 24 linen ones. 37. At this church’s
entrance the venerable prelate provided a great alexandrian curtain
embellished and adorned with various representations. There too he
provided silver candlesticks, 3 pairs; 4 fine silver crowns; and 1 fine
silver canister. In the same church he provided a red veil with various
fledglings and a fringe of byzantine purple; and 3 coverings of purple
silk over the icons. 38. In St Martin the confessor’s basilica this blessed
pope provided a confessio of fine silver-gilt, with an image of St Mary
with 10 virgins; in the confessio a gospel-book of fine silver-gilt; also
in the confessio 1 pair railings; and in front of this confessio a fine
silver cornice with 2 fine silver columns.} 72

39. Close to the side of that basilica this noteworthy and holy pope,
protected by God’s inspiration, for the Creator’s praise constructed from
the foundations a monastery 73 in honour of SS Peter and Paul, Sergius
and Bacchus and Silvester and Martin; in it he established a community
of God’s servants the monks for daily praises, praying to the Lord our

72 Though the compiler does not mention it, it seems that Sergius also provided two
pulpits, one of which had his name inscribed (the other had a couplet copied from
Pelagius IPs ambo in St Peter’s) (De Rossi, Inscr. Christ. 11.437, Krautheimer, Corpus
3.120-1). The apse-mosaic, which disappeared long ago (presumably there was also a
mosaic in the apse half-dome, but it is unknown), was accompanied by an inscription in
12 hexameters (ed. Dtimmler, MGH Poet. Lat. aevi Kar. 2.663 no. 7), which attributed
the monastery’s foundation (despite the LP) to Leo IV, while crediting Sergius with the
building of the aula. The decoration, at least, continued under Leo IV (see 105:98; Ferrari,
299ff; Vielliard 1931:90f; Krautheimer, Corpus 3.91).

73 For the monastery see Ferrari 299-301 (he is much concerned to rebut the idea that the
foundation was for Greek monks). Traces of‘Servian’ foundations (Krautheimer, Corpus
3.112,121) to the west of the church may belong to the monastery, which was built above
the Roman 6-bay hall; it was totally rebuilt in 1930, but the buildings then destroyed seem
to have been romanesque, or even survivals of the original Roman building, rather than
of the 9th century. ‘Constructed from the foundations’ in the LP should not be trusted! -

as Vielliard 1931:88 observed for this very church; Vielliard (plans I and II) gives
detailed plans of the ancient monastery. He concluded, after examining the building, that
the 9th-century work was just the bolstering of the ancient titular house and the
embellishing of the walls with frescoes. He discovered a small choir chapel, presumably
for office recitation in the winter months, on the second floor of the monastery, and
mentioned as parallel examples the second-floor chapels in S. Silvestro in capite and S.
Prassede ( idem , 99). The few frescoes remaining today suggest that the monastery was
very richly decorated and quite spacious. The saints depicted are ones usual in Rome:
Agnes, Peter and Paul, Processus and Martinian, John the Evangelist and John the Baptist,
Xystus and Silvester, the Virgin flanked by SS Agape and Irene (idem, 93-8). There is no
further information before the year 1000. The 14th-century Turin Catalogue says it was
the titulus of a cardinal priest, and served by 15 Carmelites. A copy of an inscription from
the monastery, perhaps from its library, is preserved (De Rossi, Inscr. II, 438 note 2).

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

God in the said church night and day.

{40. Now as this pontiff s limbs were weak from a gouty humour, he
had lost the power to walk on his feet and had almost lost the use of his
hands; but he was rancorous, uncontrolled in speech and given to
wrangling, unstable in deed and words, treating everything lightly. That
was why the leaders of the Romans set him at nought. Then there was
that pontiffs brother, one Benedict by name, 74 very stupid and dull, who
because of the pontiffs infirmity had undeservedly usurped the care of
church and state. He was a boor and given to unrefined pursuits, so he
began to expend all the care of the church and the needs of the state on
the construction of walls and various buildings, so much so that he
failed neither day nor night to cause incessant trouble and vexation. 41.
This man even went to the lord emperor with large quantities of gifts
and sought from him the primacy and lordship 75 at Rome, and bragged
that it was granted him. After his return he broke out into great
obstinacy and madness, overstepping everyone, to get the monarchy at
Rome. Thenceforth he would let no one pay or be paid, be harmed or
be helped, except on his say-so. And as he was of uncouth morals,
lecherous and always chasing strumpets, he was not afraid to usurp the
bishopric of Albano so he could fight for the devil more recklessly.}

{At the start of his supremacy he had destroyed the already-
mentioned church of St Martin which had been constructed with the
wondrous work of antiquity, so he could use the pretext of its
demolition and rebuilding for more readily despoiling the churches and
the people. 42. So the result was that in three years there remained no
monastery, 76 whether in Rome or outside, which did not lose its
property. Indeed there was hardly a man inside or outside Rome whom
he did not despoil by chance or by design. And with imperial permits
and instructions he thoroughly strove to extort all this, or actually did
so, 77 from both monasteries and people. From of old it was unheard of
that anyone for such a length of time could, merely by his own

74 Duchesne noted (after De Rossi, Inscr. II, p. 437) that Benedict’s name is perhaps
decipherable in a monogram occurring in an inscription at S. Martino.

75 On Benedict’s status and its implications for the constitutional position of pope Sergius
vis-^-vis the emperor Lothar see the introduction to this life.

76 This concern for monasteries suggested to Duchesne that the author was a monk.

77 The text of the last words in this sentence is corrupt; for aut molibus aut rebus exterus,
I suggest and translate aut moliebatur aut revera extraxit (Cicero twice has extraxit with
radicitus , as here). Dr Cheesman neatly suggests participles ( molitus, extrahens ), but
prefers to amend aut mobilibus aut rebus externis, ‘both for movable and for external
property’. The reference to imperial permits raises the constitutional questions discussed
on pp. 73-4.

104. SERGIUS II

machinations and cunning, lay waste and ransack this world-famous city
and all the cities subject to it, their fortresses, coastlines and borders.}
(43. There flourished in this pontiffs and his brother’s time, that is
for the three years, the wicked heresy of simony; so much did it flourish
that bishoprics were sold in public, and he who paid most got the
bishopric. To such avarice were they brought that a bishopric was sold
for 2000 mancuses 78 and more still if the buyers could find the funds.
No incumbency in the church was granted by them except at a price.
When this and the other things mentioned were raging in the church and
resounding far and wide among the people, and there was none of the
orthodox bishops nor any of the churchmen who would show zeal for
God and put themselves forward or treat with the emperor or the king 79
to snuff out such evil, or give themselves over voluntarily to death, as
it had been better to die happily than to live unhappily; so when the
Lord saw the church, redeemed by his blood, undergoing shipwreck and
there was no Christian competent to correct such great criminality or
recall the authors and abetters of this evil to repentance, so God decided
that his church should not endure such a reproach: God sent pagans to
avenge what Christians had failed to amend.}

{44. While this was going on in this pontiffs time, count Adalbert,
an active man who was margrave 80 and guardian of the island of
Corsica, 81 realizing the need the state was in, sent a letter to Rome with

78 Cf. 97:77 with n. 161, citing Grierson 1954; see further, Keynes & Lapidge 1983:237
n. 37.

79 Duchesne noted that Louis II was still only king of Italy, so the precise distinction
suggests the author of the Famesi recension was contemporary. But as Louis is called king
in earlier chapters of the life (9, 10 twice, 13 crowned king of the Lombards, 15 twice,
17, 18), which the compiler will have read, the inference may not be safe.

80 marcensis , equivalent to marchio or praefectus marcae. Adalbert was marchio of
Tuscany 834-886; he is mentioned also in the Indiculus eorum qui sacramentum fidelitatis
iuraverunt (ed. Boretius, who acceptes Pertz’s date 828-9, MGH Cap 1.378 line 15), and
also in Lothar’s capitulary pro edificatione novae Romae (ed. Boretius, MGH Cap 2.68
no. 203), among the counts charged with the expedition against the Saracens decided on
after these events. For his involvement in the attempt in 855 make Anastasius pope see
106:8-20; his attacks (with Lambert his brother-in-law) on papal territory in the 870s
would infuriate John VIII (AB 878 Nelson 207 with n. 6), who excommunicated him,
Lambert, the future pope Formosus, and the nomenclator Gregory.

81 Adalbert seems to have been given some kind of oversight of Corsica. Corsica’s status
was peculiar: it was part of the papal state but under a special patronage of the Frankish
sovereigns (cf. 97:42 and LECP 115-6 n. 13; the letter from Leo III to Charlemagne in
808 there cited contains the words: ‘About the island of Corsica ... we commit it to your
arbitrium and disposition ’). In 807 Corsica had been defended by the comes stabuli
Burchard against a Moorish attack from Spain: ARF 807 Scholz 87: Charlemagne ‘sent
his marshal Burchard with a fleet to Corsica to defend the island against the Moors, who
in past years used to come there and pillage. The Moors embarked, as usual, from Spain
and went ashore first in Sardinia, where they waged a battle with the Sardinians and lost

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the message that a multitude of the Saracen race up to 11,000 strong
were on their way and coming with 73 ships, on board which were 500
horses, and were saying they were making for Rome; 82 they should try
to rescue the treasures of the churches of St Peter the apostle and St
Paul, and if possible bring these apostles’ bodies inside Rome, 83 so that
the wretched breed of pagans could not rejoice over so great a source
of succour to us. 84 This was sent on the 10th day of August. Thanks to
the fickle and ineffectual power of the above-mentioned men, they
received it lightly and as reckoning it of little account, since everyone
thought so surprising an event was incredible. Yet the more prudent of
the Romans entered on a plan and despatched messengers and letters,
along with the letter Adalbert had sent, to the outlying cities and their
environs, so that everyone should hasten and come under arms to guard
the seashore. They spumed the orders and refused to come, except a
very few from some of the cities who came just to investigate.}

{45. A period of twelve days passed and on the 23rd day of August,
a Monday, in the 9th indiction [846], the wicked Saracens reached the
Roman shoreline close to the city of Ostia. 85 Disembarking, they came

many men - three thousand are said to have died there. Then they came by a direct route
to Corsica. Here they again engaged in battle with the fleet under Burchard’s command,
in a harbor of this island. They were defeated and put to flight with thirteen ships lost and
most of their men killed’.

82 On the origins of this expedition, AB 846 merely says that in August the Saracens and
Moors came to Rome by the Tiber. John the Deacon, Gesta epp. Neap. 60 (A iGH SSrL
432.40-433), has more: ‘At that time, with Theophilus dead and his son Michael now
emperor, the ships of many Saracens who wanted to commit robberies in Italy landed on
Ponza. Then Sergius, the consularis , along with the men of Amalfi, Gaeta and Sorrento,
putting his trust not in the number of his people but in the Lord’s mercy and the prayers
of this bishop (John), started out on a war with them. With the Lord’s protection he
quickly triumphed by defeating them. Equally, he achieved victory over those Ishmaelites
who were lying in wait on Licosa. Therefore a great army of those from Palermo came
and captured the fortress of Miseno; and thence the Africans, desiring with a mighty arm
to devastate all this region, came down on Rome...’. That they had come from Africa is
confirmed by 105:7.

50 Following Grisar 1907:457, Kirschbaum 1959:162 surmised that Adalbert’s advice was
in part acted on, and that this was the occasion when the heads of the apostles were
removed and placed in the ciborium over the altar in the Lateran basilica, where they were
venerated by the end of the 11th century; or alternatively that the heads were rescued and
moved after the Saracen attack. Such theories lack all foundation.

84 ne de tanta salute tra gens ... is corrupt. The simplest emendation is that suggested to
me by Professor Scott and adopted in this translation: for tra read nostra (written nra),
or read ista, with much the same meaning. Dr Cheesman suggests tetra (‘the foul
breed...’). The problem may be nothing more than a misprint from the only manuscript
(now lost). But if the corruption is deeper, I am tempted to suggest: ne de tanta strage
gens (‘over so great a catastrophe’), or even ne de tanta velut strage gens ... If the author
was capable of irony he might even have written ne de tanta salutifera strage gens.

85 Thanks to the garrison’s cowardice Gregory IV’s fortress merely served as a redoubt

104. SERGIUS II

to that city - its inhabitants had shut it up and fled - and captured it.
Then their scouts and others of them began to wheel round and attack
anything they could find. Reaching the nearby city of Porto, they found
it abandoned by its inhabitants; and purloining supplies and anything
they thought they needed from there, on Monday and Tuesday they
returned to Ostia.}

{46. When the Romans knew of this, the plan they decided on was
to send to Porto the Saxons, the Frisians and the Schola called that of
the Franks. 86 These got there on Monday and spent that night there on
watch. Next day, Tuesday, some of these Saracens came after plunder.
They were captured in flight but escaped across a bridge. They killed
twelve of them but the rest escaped on a boat. 87 Once the Romans
realized this, they kept a most wearisome watch over the gates of the
city of Rome. At last, when no one sent to help them arrived 88 and there
was no one to aid them in so great a need, trusting in the help of God
and the apostles, they came out that Tuesday with those they had with
them, and equipped in military fashion they came to the city of Porto
in which there were many Saracen raiders. They killed seven of them,
but the others were able to flee across that same wretched bridge and
escape. Then all day, around that city and inside it, on horseback and
wheeling round, they strove to join battle. When they saw their large
numbers and their own small numbers, they decided it would be risky
to spend that night there. Regrouping the Saxons, the Frisians and the
rest, they set them to guard and watch over the city on account of the
raiders, and returned to Rome.}

{47. Next day, Wednesday, when these guards were recklessly sitting
down to a meal, the Saracens suddenly fell on them and surrounded and
slaughtered them, so that few survived. Those who had escaped they
pursued as far as Galeria. 89 Taking to their ships, their footmen and
horsemen started hurrying to Rome. All day they journeyed with their
ships, and at twilight they came to the locations they had decided on;

for the invaders. The name Gregoriopolis (103:40) has already been dropped.

86 On the scholae see 98:19 with n. 49. In Rome they were virtually ‘foreigners’
compounds’, see Krautheimer 1980:82.

87 navigio ; it need not have been one of the ships of the invasion fleet.

88 The translation dodges the issue whether any definite destinati are meant (none have
been mentioned). If there were none, the following words seem a little redundant; if there
were some, translate ‘when those sent to help them did not arrive’ (more literally, ‘they
did not receive those sent to help them’). The only possible evidence for auxiliaries being
sent would seem to be ‘Lothar’s commanders’, mentioned by AB (cf. n. 92), who did
arrive later on, but it seems unlikely that these would have been despatched so soon.

89 Ponte di Galera; cf. 103:42 and n. 94 on Gregory IV’s curtis Galeria.

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and there the horsemen swarmed from the ships, and made a surprise
attack on St Peter the prince of the apostles’ church with unspeakable
iniquities. 90 Then all the companies of Romans, left leaderless, came out
to the Campus Neronis 91 to face the armed men....} 92

9(1 It is generally accepted that this was the occasion when the shrine of the apostle
suffered the severe damage noticed by the excavators. What was taken from the central
tomb space, which was ransacked, can never be known; the sources do not mention it, the
authorities at the time would scarcely have broadcast it even if they knew. See Toynbee
& Ward Perkins 1956:227-8, Kirschbaum 1959:162. Texts from the time show the shock
caused by the event: AB 846 Nelson 63: ‘the Saracens and Moors... laid waste the basilica
of St Peter..., and along with the very altar which had been placed over his tomb, they
carried off all the ornaments and treasures.’ AF 846 Reuter 25: ‘The Moors... after they
had failed to break into the city they destroyed the church of St Peter’. See too Ann.
Xant. \ Ann. Weissemburg. 846 (ed. Pertz, MGH SS 1.111): ‘The church of St Peter the
apostle was captured and despoiled by pagans, and when they meant to return home with
these spoils a worthy judgment of God fell on them and they all perished at sea’; and
Lauer 1899:307. The result was Lothar’s decision to order a major campaign against the
Saracens and also the fortification of St Peter’s; his capitulary pro edificatione novae
Romae {MGH Cap 2.65 no. 203, 2) explains his feelings: ‘No one doubts that it is
because our sins and iniquities deserve it that so great an ill has befallen Christ’s church
that even the very Roman church which is the head of Christendom has fallen into the
hands of infidels and throughout all the borders of our realm and that of our brothers the
people of the pagans has prevailed. Therefore we have firmly judged it necessary that with
the help of God’s mercy we emend everything in which we know he is particularly
offended by us and that by making fitting satisfaction we may endeavour to placate the
divine justice, so that we can have him placated whom we realize to be angiy’; and cf.
105 n. 105. For the date, Zielinski 1991:37-49; c. 7 of the capitulary refers to the attack
on St Peter’s as ‘in this year’, and c. 11 requires Louis to reach Pavia by 25 January.

91 Cf. n. 66 to 91:22.

1)2 The LP text breaks off at the most interesting point, though the disaster the Saracens
later suffered at sea is mentioned in the next life (105:7). Ps.-Liutprand (PL 129.1243-4),
who summarizes this version of the LP life of Sergius, abridges what is now lost in a few
words, describing great slaughters, captures of towns, booty, and fires; the Saracens
defeated the king (Louis) and put him to flight; they departed with enormous booty. More
explicit details are given in AB 846 Nelson 63, John the Deacon {Gesta epp. Neap. 60-61,
MGH SSrL 433.1-25; continued from n. 82), the Chronicon S. Benedicti Casinensis cc.
6 and 12 (MGH SSrL 472, edited c. 870 and cited below as CB ), and Benedict of Mt
Soracte (c. 26; MGH SS 3.712-3; cited as BMS ), whose account, written over 100 years
later, is an extraordinary farrago and muddle (the pope is ‘Gregory’, the Leonine City
already exists, etc.) and has to be taken with a large grain of salt; yet it may preserve
some genuine memory of the events. A reasonably coherent though doubtless incomplete
account of what happened can be reconstructed; it is not necessary (as Duchesne
supposed) to presume that AB inverted the order of the last two events it mentions: the
Saracen horde was not monolithic and there can be little doubt that different parties split
in different directions. First, events near Rome. Following the sack of St Peter’s, there was
an attempt by the Romans to resist the Saracens. The LP was about to deal with this when
it breaks off. BMS mentions an engagement between the Saracens and the ‘emperor’ Louis
II who had come down from Monte Mario; Louis was defeated. It is clear from AB that
Louis was at Rome fairly early in these events (he ‘returned’ there after a later defeat;
though Duchesne, citing Bohmer-MUhlbacher, Reg. imp., 1094, held that Louis must then
still have been in France with his father Lothar); and it is unlikely that the different
chroniclers were recording different engagements in the Campus Neronis; no doubt his
forces were inadequate, and, as Ps.-Liutprand records, he was put to flight. BMS also

104. SERGIUS II

48 . This 93 blessed pontiff, after he had gloriously ruled the Roman
and apostolic see 3 years, was taken from this life and went to
everlasting rest. He performed one ordination in March , 8 priests, 3
deacons; for various places 23 bishops. He was buried in St Peter's. 94

states that Guy, margrave of Spoleto, came to answer the pope’s appeal and with Roman
help he defeated the enemy and pursued them to Civitavecchia; if this is true it may refer
to some skirmishing party, and can be most economically applied to the group mentioned
in AB : ‘Another enemy force reached the church of the blessed Apostle Paul, but they
were crushed by the people of the Campagna and all of them were slain...’. The
chronological relationship of this with the remaining events is unclear. CB mentions the
sacking of both basilicas, the killing there of many Saxons {pace Duchesne this need not
refer to the earlier massacre of Saxons at Porto mentioned in LP c. 47), and of very many
others; the Saracens then captured Fondi, and in September decamped to Gaeta (they will
have been fearful of having their communications cut, and their fleet will have followed
along the coast). John mentions the devastation of both churches and other areas, and the
taking of captives, and states that Lothar sent fierce men who chased the Saracens to
Gaeta (and from a later remark of his it emerges that at about this time Caesarius the son
of duke Sergius was coming with ships from Naples and Amalfi, evidently expecting to
take on the Saracen fleet). AB states that the Saracens then ‘took up a position on a
mountain 100 miles from the city, an extremely well-defended site’ (this must be Gaeta,
about 100 miles along the Via Appia). John writes that at Gaeta they set an ambush; the
Franks, unaware, attacked, but their standard-bearer was killed, and the rest were
slaughtered. AB refers to this defeat: ‘Lothar’s commanders mercilessly attacked them and
were killed’. CB states that the Frankish army arrived, was defeated on 10 November, and
fled; the Saracens pursued and captured all their property (c. 12 says that Berthar, the next
abbot of Montecassino (from 856), fought well at this battle). AB says: ‘Louis, Lothar’s
son, king of Italy, joined battle with the Saracens but was defeated and only got back to
Rome with difficulty.’ John then states that Caesarius prevented the pursuit of the
Frankish survivors by bringing about a battle on the seashore; the Saracens tried to capture
Gaeta; but with his own and Amalfitan ships Caesarius occupied and defended it. In other
words, the fleet of Naples and Amalfi had been cruising near Gaeta and landed troops
who arrived to stop the victors, but its leader Caesarius had too few forces to take the
offensive and could merely defend Gaeta. CB, which not surprisingly is well informed
about events in the area of Montecassino, continues that (one group of?) the Saracens
burned the cella of S. Andrew; at the cella of S. Apollinaris called Albianum they could
see Montecassino, but the late hour prevented their immediate arrival; the weather was
calm and dry, the river very low and easily fordable. The monks expected death and
prayed for the Lord’s mercy; barefoot and with ash on their heads they held litanies to St
Benedict. Abbot Bassacius saw a vision of his predecessor Apollinaris who told them to
hold litanies and masses, and they would be safe. Rain and storms followed and the
Garigliano flooded, so that next day the Saracens could not reach its banks; like barbarians
they bit away their fingers and gnashed their teeth, scurrying around in fury. They burned
the cellae of SS Stephen and George, and by way of Duo Leones returned to camp, some
days later they hamstrung their horses and set sail. John merely states that there was a
storm; the Saracens asked for a truce with Caesarius, to beach their ships and depart when
the weather would allow; Sergius agreed to their taking an oath to this effect, for fear that
if they were stranded they would occupy the country. Then the weather improved and they
sailed away.

93 Though only in the later recension, this passage will also have concluded the earlier
recension after the end of the Saracen invasion. Ps.-Liutprand summarizes the invasion
(last note), then gives the ordinations (though with 25 bishops, not 23).

94 Sergius’s tomb was in pope Paschal’s chapel of SS Xystus and Fabian (100:5), perhaps
even in their altar, as is stated in a note in the manuscript which preserves his 14-line

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

His bishopric was vacant 2 months 15 days.

epitaph (ed. Dilmmler, MGHPoet. Lat. aevi Kar. 2.663; De Rossi, Inscr. Christ. II, 213).
Sergius is there described as a lover of the people who shepherded the sheep well, the
hope of the fatherland, the glory of the world, an excellent governor, eager to cany out
God’s commands, nurturing the chiefs of the Romans not only with spiritual words but
with human necessities; he is compared with St Leo and pope Damasus for his teaching
of the flock, his zeal to refresh those in need; and it is implied that he deserved his burial
with the remains of his martyred predecessors Fabian and Xystus. The author of the
Famesi recension saw him differently.

105. LEO IV (847-855).

This is the longest life in the LP save that of Leo III (though it is
only slightly longer than that of Hadrian I), composed by an author who
liked to think that his style was brief (c. 82) and who is concerned to
emphasize how ‘praiseworthy’ Leo was (he uses laudabilis seven times).
The wording at the end of c. 74 and in c. 84 (so too probably c. 92, and
perhaps ‘current indiction’ in c. 47) implies that Leo was still alive at
least when some parts of the life were being composed. The source of
the ‘we’ passage in c. 54 may have been a papal letter (cf. n. 76); but
it is at least equally likely that the compiler of that part of the life was
a man very high up in the papal administration who was in a position
to act as, in effect, the mouthpiece of Leo IV. We are moving away
from lives compiled by lowly clerks to those written from a much
higher standpoint, as will be seen in the interpolations made in life 107
and in the whole draft of life 108.

Much of the life is devoted to Leo’s restoration of and gifts to
churches in Rome and its territory. Making good the damage done by
the Saracens at St Peter’s was a major task for Leo; so too, we are told,
at St Paul’s, but the only specific detail is that given in c. 96. The
attention paid to the monastery of St Martin’s by St Peter’s, where Leo
had been brought up, is only to be expected, though it too may have
suffered from the Saracens. His activities at S. Clemente (the lower
basilica) extended, though the LP does not mention it, to decorative
frescoes in one of which his portrait still survives (photograph in, e.g.,
NCE 8.641). Despite the great length of this life there is one certain
omission; the building of S. Maria Nova to replace S. Maria Antiqua.
Leo’s part in this is mentioned twice in later LP lives, 106:22, 107:37.
Another omission may be the building of S. Stefano Maggiore (degli
Abessini) near St Peter’s, where there is an inscription of Leo IV; but
see n. 6 to life 100.

But the life contains a great deal more than the restoring and
enriching of churches. The see was now in the hands of an incumbent
far more energetic than Gregory IV, and determined to reform the
scabrous regime inherited from Sergius II and the latter’s brother
Benedict; Leo was able to restore papal prestige and prepare the way for
the pontificates of his important successors. The disaster of 846 had
shown that defence from the Saracens was crucial. The LP provides
most of what is known about Leo’s efforts to defend Roman territory:
the restoration of the walls of Rome in 848-9 (cc. 38-40); the
construction of the Leonine City from 848 to 852 (cc. 68-74) which

100

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

would both protect St Peter’s and provide a stronghold for the pope;
Leo’s organizing of the fleets of Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta, and defeat
of the Saracens off Ostia in 849 (cc. 47-54); the settlement of Corsicans
as a garrison at Porto (cc. 77-81); and the rebuilding of Centumcellae
at Leopolis (cc. 99-105). Leo’s concern for reform is most in evidence
at the council held at St Peter’s on 8 December 853 (cc. 90-92), at
which the canons of the council of 826 were renewed and reinforced,
and at which Anastasius (see below) was deposed.

We are fortunate that our knowledge of Leo’s activities can be
supplemented from the 45 letters extracted from his register and
preserved in a codex in the British Library. Regrettably some of the
letters are mere fragments, sometimes with no known context, and the
texts are all given without their dates. They can be only a fraction of
Leo’s total output, but no very consistent principle of selection is
apparent, and we may assume that, with documents known from
elsewhere, they provide a typical glimpse into Leo’s activities and
attitudes.

From this material Leo emerges as one who cared for reform and the
restoration of church discipline, and was much involved in the tricky
relations between his own state and the Carolingian empire, and between
his church and the powerful prelates of that empire.

The LP is surprisingly reticent about Leo’s relations with the Frankish
emperors Lothar and, increasingly after 850, Louis II. Imperial
involvement with Rome is presented as peripheral. We are told that (c.
69) Leo planned to construct the Leonine City in consultation with
Lothar, who with his brothers sent much silver for it; that (c. 33) Leo’s
picture in the shrine of St Peter was accompanied by that of his spiritual
son Lothar, that (c. 80) Lothar and Louis were somehow involved in the
charter that allowed the Corsicans to settle at Porto, and that (c. 90) the
council of 853 was held on the advice of the two emperors. In Leo’s
last months of life, one papal official, Daniel, accused another, Gratian,
of pro-Greek sympathies: this caused Louis to arrive unexpectedly in
Rome. Leo greeted him and ‘appeased’ him. Evidently Leo assumed
Louis would think there was no smoke without fire - and Louis would
almost certainly have been right. A trial was held, apparently with Leo
and Louis as co-judges; Gratian was acquitted, and Louis left Rome just
before Leo’s death (cc. 110-113). As for Leo’s ordination, carried out
without waiting for imperial consent as required by the Constitutio of
824, the LP (c. 8) assures us that the threat of the Saracens (whose fleet
had just sunk) was the excuse, and that no disloyalty to Lothar was
meant. But with an eye to what would happen on his own death, Leo
wrote at some point in the last four years of his life to both emperors

105. LEO IV

101

(J2652, MGH Ep 5.604) acknowledging the terms of the Constitutio.
Late in 853 Leo wrote (J2643, Ep 5.601) to Lothar that the imperial
capitula and the precepts both of Lothar and of previous popes were to
be maintained uninffinged. Anyone who told Lothar otherwise was a
liar; he added that the wicked claim and unjust activity of one
Christopher was well vouched for: so many knew of it that it would be
almost impossible to collect all their names. We do not know who this
Christopher was, but it looks as if he may have been saying too much,
like, perhaps, Daniel. Other men were involved at various points in
incidents which for lack of detailed evidence cannot be fully interpreted.
Thus, before 850 (J2602, Ep 5.607-8) Leo twice asked Louis not to send
Peter and Hadrian to him; if he did send them, they would be in danger
of their lives. Early in 852 Leo sent his legate Ragibert to Lothar, but
Ragibert was killed on his journey in a plot which Leo, writing to
Lothar (J2611, Ep 5.596), blamed on George, Hadrian and Peter. He
added that previous popes, like emperors and kings, had been able to
send envoys even to barbarians without such a deed being perpetrated.
George, Peter and Hadrian were condemned by Leo for the murder in
accordance with Roman law and in the presence of Lothar’s envoys
(those established by the Consitutio of 824). But Lothar ordered Leo to
have them retried. Late in 853 Leo wrote to Lothar (J2638, Ep
5.600,608) urging him to punish those who attacked the teaching of
ancient laws; those three criminals had been properly convicted; the
only reason why the death sentence they merited had not been
implemented was that this was not allowed at Eastertide, and Roman
law should remain in force as it had always done. Presumably the
executions were carried out after Whitsun. In a letter of about 853,
whose precise context and reference is obscure, Leo wrote (J2646, Ep
5.607) to Louis apologizing if any of his actions had been incompetent
or if he had not acted with justice for his subjects, and expressing
willingness to emend everything by Louis’s judgement and that of
Louis’s envoys. Leo asked him to send envoys to inquire into the matter
(whatever it was), just as if Louis were present in person, so that
whether the matters were small or great they would leave nothing
uninvestigated. Leo could be stem against his enemies; but equally he
was concerned for the plight of those whom the emperors imprisoned.
About 852 (J2622, Ep 5.586) Leo explained to Lothar that popes had
always interceded for men who had committed any fault against their
princes, and that princes, obeying the Roman see, had restored them to
honour and favour; so he too was begging God and human powers on
behalf of those who had fallen and were in chains. The context is
unknown, but the men sound like political prisoners whom Leo regarded

102

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

as his own supporters. After all, as he wrote once to Louis (J2630, Ep
5.589), the purpose of his own acceptance of the pinnacle of the
pontificate was so that he could recall the discordant to concord and
emend evil.

For all their obscurity, these incidents are highly suggestive of the
tensions that existed, and go a long way to explain why Louis would be
so keen to have his own man, Anastasius, on the papal throne. Leo was
walking a tightrope. How could he and his state remain loyal to the
Franks without being fully integrated into the western empire? In the
last resort, Rome depended on the Franks for defence, as Leo well
knew. Constantinople could not be depended on for protection against
the Saracens in Italy: late in 853 (J2642, Ep 5.601) Leo exhorted the
army of Franks to fight manfully against the enemies of the faith; he
reminded them of the valour and victories of their parents, and held out
the promise of heaven to those who died in this war.

The most surprising omission in the life is that of Leo’s reception of
Louis II at Rome in 850 and anointing of him as emperor (cf. n. 120).
It was probably while Louis was in Rome on this occasion that a
council was held in his presence at St Peter’s to deal with a quarrel
between Peter bishop of Arezzo and Cantius bishop of Siena about
churches in the county of Siena. After twelve days had been allowed for
the production of documents, the decision went in Cantius’s favour. But
Leo might have preferred to deal with such a matter without Louis. He
tried both to be scrupulously correct yet also not to fail in asserting
papal authority within the empire. In 853 (J2626, Ep 5.588) Leo sent to
both emperors the customary branches of victory, as a distinction and
honour at Easter. When he wanted Roliand, bishop of Arles, to visit
Rome, he asked Lothar to allow it (J2621, Ep 5.585). When he granted
the pallium to Alteus bishop of Autun, he carefully apologized to Lothar
(J2603, Ep 5.604) for what seemed uncanonical. In 851 (J2613, Ep
5.597) Leo asked the permission of both emperors to consecrate a
deacon Colonus as bishop of Rieti, offering to make him bishop of
Ascoli instead if they would prefer it. Leo received the reply he wanted,
and Colonus was made bishop of Rieti (J2615, Ep 5.598). The
sovereigns, though, must accept papal judgments. To Charles the Bald
Leo wrote in 852 or 853 (J2625, Ep 5.606): ‘If perhaps, though we
cannot believe it, you regard us as useless, the church over which we
preside is not useless but is rightly called by all the head and origin of
all.’ Such deference was typical. Yet Leo’s only other surviving letter
to Charles, in 853 (J2641, Ep 5.601), sharply reminded him that it was
uncanonical for a layman to depose priests from the churches for which
they had been ordained or into which they had been inducted. It was a

105. LEO IV

103

difficult balancing-act.

It is at least partly in the context of relations with the empire that we
must see Leo’s concern to curb those he regarded as turbulent priests.
His greatest problem was to be Anastasius, cardinal priest of S.
Marcello in Rome itself, who first appears in c. 92 of this life and will
recur in lives 106 and 108. But there were others whom Leo had to deal
with, most notably John of Ravenna and Hincmar of Rheims. Though
not mentioned in this life, they would create problems for Leo’s
successors, especially Nicholas (life 107). They are worthy of
consideration here, partly to explain the background to Nicholas’s
actions, partly to illustrate Leo’s authoritarian approach.

In 853 (J2628, Ep 5.588) Leo reprimanded John, archbishop of
Ravenna (850-861), that he had done what no priest should do, and also
transgressed his oath to the pope, by illegally seizing the properties and
fields of Romans. Leo menacingly stated that he would never allow
Romans and subjects to be injured by him, and if he continued to
misbehave, Leo would personally avenge them and would furiously,
boldly and cruelly seize all John’s property; and by apostolic authority
he abrogated a promise which one Hilarius had been forced to make to
John. On John see further 107:21-35.

In 847 Leo granted Hincmar, successor to Ebbo (see p. 72) in the see
of Rheims (845-882), the use of the pallium on certain days, then, early
in 851 (J2607-8, Ep 5.590-1) Leo acceded to a request from Lothar and
increased the number of occasions on which Hincmar might wear it,
stressing to Hincmar what a unique privilege this was; but he absolutely
refused Lothar’s request to give him a papal vicariate to give canonical
judgment over other archbishops, bishops and abbots in that region, on
the grounds that Lothar had already secured from Sergius this position
for Drogo of Metz throughout France, Gaul and Germany. But Hincmar
acted in matters which went beyond the powers Leo had given him.
Later in 851 (J2614, Ep 5.598-9) Leo reproached him for
excommunicating Falcaric, an (imperial) vassal. He came with letters
from Lothar and his brother Louis, claiming that he had been
wrongfully excommunicated for putting his concubine in a convent and
marrying a wife. Leo wrote that he grieved at Falcaric’s anxiety and
lamented his excommunication; he threatened Hincmar with the
consequences if he did not receive him back into the church.

Perhaps in 852 (J2618-19, Ep 5.604-5) Leo stated his objections
against Hincmar to all the bishops of Gaul: he had dissolved the vow of
a Benedictine monk, had in the lifetime of archbishop Ebbo usurped the
bishopric of Rheims, and had now in his pride hurled an anathema
against an emperor (Lothar) who had been hallowed by pope Paschal

104

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

along with his brother king Charles and his wife and sons. Leo wrote
to Lothar about this, stating that he was forbidding Hincmar ever
imposing an anathema on him or causing him any other injury.

Leo’s greatest opportunity to call Hincmar to heel came when
Hincmar held a council at Soissons (23 April 853) to annul the
ordinations carried out by his predecessor Ebbo after the latter had been
deposed. Hearing of this, Leo wrote to Hincmar that he could not yet
ratify the council since he had not received its acts, his own legates had
not been present at it, no report on it had been received from the
emperor, and those whose orders had been annulled were appealing to
Rome. Soon after, it seems, Leo followed this up with what amounted
to a refusal to recognize the synod. He sent Hincmar an order (J2632,
Ep 5.589-90), that those who had then been deposed without a fair
hearing and were now appealing should have their cases dealt with at a
new council, and if, as he said he hoped would not happen, they refused
to obey his judgment, no one was to prevent them coming to the
apostolic see; he was sending Peter bishop of Spoleto to reconvene the
council in his own place; and he ordered that Hincmar should either
come to Rome with those bishops who wanted to be heard by the
Roman see, or should send his legate. Hincmar later denied receiving
this letter. The affair of Ebbo’s ordinations would rumble on (p. 165);
and Hincmar would cause pope Nicholas some anxiety (107:58).

The chequered career of Anastasius, successively cardinal priest,
antipope, papal secretary, and librarian of the holy see, first comes to
our attention in c. 92 of this life. Of other sources for his career, AS
868 Nelson 145-150 is particularly valuable. He was ordained priest by
Leo in 847 for St Marcellus’s titulus, but in 848 for reasons which
remain obscure he left Rome without Leo’s permission and stayed
outside Roman territory, mainly in the province of Aquileia. Twice Leo
proposed holding a council and sent envoys and letters to Anastasius
requiring his attendance. Anastasius did not appear, and after he had
been absent for two years, Leo took sterner measures: at a council held
in Rome on 16 December 850, attended by the archbishops of Ravenna
and Milan and 75 bishops, he excommunicated him pending his return.
Anastasius stayed away. When he had been absent five years, Leo
resolved to journey to Ravenna, and left strict instructions (n. 159) that
the business of church and state at Rome should continue as normal. At
Ravenna Leo met Louis. At S. Vitale on 29 May 853, he anathematized
Anastasius. Returning to Rome, he had a copy of the two sentences
against Anastasius (850 and 853) fixed on the door of St Peter’s; and on
19 June he held a council of 65 bishops at St Peter’s at which the
anathema against Anastasius was confirmed. And the anathema was

105. LEO IV

105

extended to ‘all those who wanted to offer him any assistance or
comfort in - God forbid - his election to the honour of the pontificate’:
which at last hints at what Leo’s objection to Anastasius was. Leo wrote
to all the hierarchy, clerics and laity, to inform them that Anastasius,
already excommunicated once (in 850) had now been excommunicated
at Ravenna on 29 May and Rome on 19 June. Meanwhile Anastasius
moved to Chiusi; the pope had him summoned by three bishops (c. 92),
who met him without difficulty and delivered the papal letter they were
carrying, inviting him to present himself at Rome on 15 November. He
did not comply. At Leo’s urging, Louis kept promising to make him
appear; but Louis tricked Leo: he claimed he could not find Anastasius
and right down to Leo’s death he never produced him. In view of
Louis’s efforts to have Anastasius made pope in 855, there can be little
doubt that Anastasius was already leader of an imperial party in Rome,
and that Leo’s objections to him throughout had been based on Leo’s
desire to oppose any increase in imperial influence, particularly in papal
elections; but even Louis could not protect him from excommunication
by Leo. The council scheduled for 15 November was delayed slightly
and the 67 bishops met on 8 December 853. They confirmed and added
to the 38 canons of Eugene IPs council of 826, and then yet again dealt
with Anastasius’s case. Apart from the LP’s account of this council (cc.
90-92), we have the council acts, the text of the summons sent by the
three bishops, the pope’s speech, and the sentence. Anastasius had now
a third and fourth time been summoned by letters from the pope, but as
he had not come to two councils of bishops the decree was that he be
totally removed from the sacerdotal ministry and never find his place
restored. Even the emperor Lothar subscribed to this council. Afterwards
Leo wrote to Lothar (J2644, Ep 5.602) that the council had been
planned for other purposes, but that it was the council itself which had
insisted on dealing with Anastasius’s abandonment of his church. A
copy of the decision, like those of the two earlier councils, was fixed to
the door of St Peter’s; the three copies were later attached by Hadrian
II to a new sentence incurred by Anastasius, and all the material was
then inserted by Hincmar into AB 868. The story of Anastasius
continues with his bid for the papacy in 855; see life 106.

On relations between Leo and Constantinople the LP has nothing,
which is the more unfortunate because strains with that patriarchate
were being renewed which would cause many problems under Nicholas
and Hadrian II. The patriarch Ignatius (whose motives for all this are
unknown; cf. Nicetas, Vita Ignatii , PG 105.511-2) summoned a council
and without consulting Rome deposed the bishop of Syracuse, Gregory
Asbestas, and some other bishops, Eulampius and Peter. Gregory had

106

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

fled to Constantinople from the Saracen invasions in 843. To Leo
Ignatius’s act was aggression, as he saw Sicily as in his own province.
When Ignatius wrote to Leo asking for the deprivation to be confirmed,
Leo in 853 (J2629, Ep 5.589) protested that Ignatius’s action was
unprecedented (his predecessors had always brought such matters
speedily to Rome), and refused to give the confirmation requested since
the action had been performed without his legates being present and
without his own permission. Ignatius tried offering Leo a pallium;
whatever his motive, Leo regarded it as dangerous, as it was a papal
prerogative to bestow the pallium throughout Europe (a term including
Constantinople!), and sent it back, begging Ignatius not to take this
badly (J2647, Ep 5.607). This was followed up by another letter from
Leo in which Ignatius was ordered to send an envoy to explain the
grounds for anathematizing the three bishops (J2654, Mansi 16.427).
Ignatius, it seems, ignored this and again asked for confirmation of his
decision. Leo refused, and summoned both sides to Rome (J2661, Mansi
15.228, 229), But within months Leo was dead; the next pope would
receive an envoy on the matter (106:33).

The life emphasizes (cc. 18, 26) Leo’s preaching (an activity in which
St Peter was significantly depicted as engaging, c. 55). For us the
contents of this can be recovered only from those of Leo’s letters that
show his concern for moral reform. Thus in 849 he replied to the
bishops of Brittany (J2599 Ep 5.593) who had enquired about a number
of matters. Those guilty of simony could not help themselves by any
penance; but bishops accused of this or any other crime had to be
judged canonically by a tribunal of 12 bishops or for facts sworn to by
72 witnesses, and had the right of appeal to Rome. The organization of
parishes and their clergy is to be subject to a bishop. The casting of lots
is no better than witchcraft. Marriages are indissoluble unless they were
not freely entered into or, with the consent of both parties, for one to
be free for God, though neither may remarry. Church goods may not be
alienated to the laity: those who do this gain from it, but the recipients
incur a fault. A cleric may not have more than one titular church,
though he may have others in commendation. Tithes are due to churches
where baptisms are carried out. No meat may be eaten on Wednesays
or Fridays and preferably not on Saturdays. Judgments may only be
made from the correct canonical sources, councils and the papal
decretals (cf. 107 n. 87). Simony was an ongoing problem. Also in 849
(J2600, Ep 5.597-8), when consulted by Nominoe duke of Brittany on
what was to be done with simoniacs, Leo replied by sending a copy of
the relevant canons and exhorting Nominoe not to continue defending
Gislard, the intruder into the church of Nantes; Leo still regarded Actard

105. LEO IV

107

as bishop.

In 853 Leo wrote (J2640, Ep 5.600) to Galerius bishop of Tripolis,
urging on him the need to uphold the traditional penitential discipline.
Leo had heard that in Galerius’s territories Christians were avoiding it,
with the claim that it unreasonably meant giving up sex within marriage.
Leo stated that they were wrong; every Christian was bound to
undertake penance for everything illicit. Lawful marriages were not
dissolved by it, and Galerius must preach this.

For further enlightenment on the breadth of papal concerns it is worth
considering Leo’s involvement with Sardinia (for pope Nicholas’s
concerns there see 107:56). Early in 851 Leo wrote two letters to the
Judge of the island. In the first (J2611, Ep 5.596) he asked him to send
Sardinians, boys, adults and young men under arms, who could fulfil his
daily orders. He also asked that if any of the sea-wool called pinninum
was discovered anywhere he should purchase it, however high the price,
and send it to Leo, since it was essential for the vestments that Leo and
his chief men wore on solemn festivals. The Judge had sent Leo envoys
to inquire about the position of clergy whose promotion had been
irregular; Leo replied that they could perform their functions, citing
pope Anastasius (II): ‘Evil men, by ministering good things, harm not
others but only themselves.’ In his second letter to the Judge (J2612, Ep
596-7), Leo replied to his uncertainty about what to do with criminals
who took refuge in a church: Leo replied that the Christian emperors had
considered the question carefully, and had been accustomed to pardon
them, except in a few cases where the crime had been against religion.
So the Judge should obey the pope in this, and should grant those who
fled to a church their lives and the integrity of their limbs; after all, if
they had managed to take refuge with men they would have surely been
safe, so their love of God should save them. If the Judge followed this
policy God would forgive him his own sins. About two years later the
Judge wrote to Leo with some request which Leo regarded as
uncanonical; Leo therefore replied, refusing to do what was asked
(J2648, Ep 5.609). Life in Sardinia, and Leo’s concerns, are also
illustrated by two letters to John bishop of Cagliari. In one (J2649, Ep
5.602-3) he ordered him to destroy the altar in a church of St Michael
on the Lustrensis estate, since the church had been consecrated by a
heretical archbishop Arsenius, and to build and consecrate a new one.
John wrote to Leo to ask why it was that the popes insisted on
churchmen being judged apart from laymen, though this did not seem
to tally with St Paul’s views; Leo replied (J2650, Ep 5.611-12) that
church rules were to be changed according to the changing of the times.

For Leo’s interests we may note, finally, his concern about church

108

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

music, appropriate enough for one who had been brought up in St
Martin’s monastery which provided choral services for St Peter’s. To
abbot Honoratus Leo wrote (J2651, Ep 5.603) expressing his regrets that
Honoratus hated Gregory’s tradition and chose to dissent from everyone
else who used Latin to praise God. He explained how Gregory’s labour
and skill had produced the music to be sung everywhere, so that it
would bring even the ignorant and hard-minded to the churches.
Honoratus was to use Gregorian chant or be excommunicated. The LP
(c. 26), reflecting Leo’s interest in liturgy, credits him with instituting
the Octave of the Assumption.

CHRONOLOGY AND SUMMARY

Duchesne II p. V commented on the chronological order of the
material in this life (but note that the end of c. 84 seems to be filling in
material omitted from the beginning of the pontificate).

Geertman 1975:81, however, believes that the register-material, while
chronological, is not annalistic: the data were entered at brief intervals,
before they were arranged in registers under each indict ion-year. This
life thus gives a better picture than any other of the day to day records
of the vestiarium , but the material does not lend itself to being grouped
in annual sections. The repetition almost annually of gifts to SS IV
Coronati, where Leo had been priest, may, Geertman concedes, give
some clue to the year divisions. The references to that church in cc. 41-
42 and 44 are both ‘enclosed’ by material belonging to 848/9; and this
is enough to show that, contrary to the practice in earlier lives, a church
can now appear twice in the same indiction-year. In fact SS IV Coronati
is mentioned 12 times in this life, and Leo’s pontificate lasted only 9
indiction-years. Yet there may have been some chronological grouping
in the material: the compiler may have used a system of regnal years
alongside the indictions. At cc. 18 and 70 he certainly reckons in the
former; elsewhere he uses the latter. The solution may be that each
indiction year (September to August) was divided in the registers
approximately into two halves at the anniversary of Leo’s ordination in
April; Leo’s pontificate would occupy 17 half-years. The remaining
problem is that St Peter’s is mentioned at least 27 times, and there is no
way this can be accommodated to any scheme.

In the following summary of the life, dates stated in the text are
given, those known from elsewhere are in brackets; the whole is then
divided into half-years on the principle that SS IV Coronati should not
be mentioned twice in the same period. The result should give an
approximately accurate chronology.

1-4: character, education, career. 5-6: election. 7: fate of the Saracens

105. LEO IV

109

(c. Feb./Mar. 847?). 8: ordination (10 April 847).

9: St Peter’s. 10: IV Coronati (possibly before Leo’s ordination),
[indiction X summer, 847:]

11: S. Maria in vico Sardorum; patriarchate. 12: decree on liturgy at St
Paul’s (30 June 847?); earthquake dated 846/7 (July/August 847?);
decree excluding the laity from the presbyterium . 13: St Peter’s; 14: IV
Coronati; St Peter’s. 15: St Andrew’s; St Anastasius’s; St Praxedes’s.
16-17: palace; gold cross. 18: character. 18-19: story of the serpent
(dated 15 August 847). 20: fire in the vicus Saxonum.

[indiction XI winter, 847-848:]

21: St Peter’s; St Martin’s. 22: IV Coronati;

[indiction XI summer, 848:]

St Peter’s. 23: Soracte; St Peter’s. 24: St Peter’s. 25: monasterium
Corsarum. 26: preaching and actions; institutes Octave of Assumption
(22 August 848?). 27: St Mary’s at S. Lorenzo; St Stephen’s; St Leo’s
oratory. 28: monasterium Corsarum; processional cross. 29: Porto; Silva
Candida. 30: SS Stephen & Cassian; 31: St Leo’s shrine at St Peter’s.
32-34: St Peter’s shrine (33 has Lothar as emperor, evidently without
Louis, so before Easter 850). 35: St Peter’s; St Leo’s oratory; St
Caesarius’s; St Agatha’s.

[indiction XII winter, 848-849:]

36: oratories at St Peter’s. 37: oratories at St Peter’s; Frascati; St
Peter’s. 38-40: restoration of walls of Rome dated 848/9. 41-42: IV
Coronati. 43: St Stephen’s;

[indiction XII summer, 849:]

St Peter’s. 44-5: IV Coronati. 46: Subiaco; St Peter’s. 47-54: Saracen
attack dated 848/9.

[indiction XIII winter, 849-850:]

55: St Peter’s etc. 56: St Mary’s at S. Lorenzo; IV Coronati; St
Stephen’s;

[indiction XIII summmer, 850:]

St Peter’s. 57: St Laurence’s; IV Coronati. 58: his own house made into
monastery of SS Symmetrius & Caesarius. 59: St Mary’s at S. Lorenzo;
St Laurence’s. 60: S Maria in Trastevere;

[indiction XIV winter, 850-851:]

St Peter’s; Frascati. 61: St Peter’s. 62: St Silvester’s oratory at Lateran
palace; Jerusalem church; St Mary’s in Aquiro; Frascati; Moreno;
Maruli. 63: St Mary’s at S. Lorenzo; Silva Candida.

[indiction XIV summer, 851:]

64: St Peter’s; Sessorian. 65: Subiaco; Fondi; Terracina;

[indiction XV winter, 851-852:]

St Peter’s. 66: Silva Candida; St Clement’s;

110

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

[indiction XV summer, 852:]

St Peter’s; Terracina. 67 Porto; St Peter’s. 68-74: Leonine city (70:
years 2-6; 74: dedicated 27 June 852, which may govern the position of
the whole account). 75: Blera; IV Coronati; St Mary’s at S Lorenzo. 76:
St Clement’s; Porto; Anagni. 77-81: defence of Porto with exiled
Corsicans. 82: Amelia and Orte.

[indiction I winter, 852-853:]

83: IV Coronati; St Mary’s in vico Sardorum.

[indiction I summer, 853:]

84-85: St Peter’s (but see above on date of c. 84). 85: St Mary’s at S.
Lorenzo. 86: St Mary’s in vico Sardorum; St Martin’s at St Peter’s; IV
Coronati; St Petronilla’s; St Mary’s in schola Saxonum.

[indiction II winter, 853-854:]

87-89: St Peter’s. 89 St Andrew’s; IV Coronati. 90-92: Council (on 8
December 853). 93: St Peter’s etc. 94 St Peter’s; Frascati.

[indiction II summer, 854:]

95: St Peter’s. 96: St Paul’s; St Peter’s. 97: Balnearola; St Laurence’s;
St Clement’s. 98: Aurelia; SS Silvester & Martin. 99-105: (99 is 40
years after 813, cf. n. 145) Leopolis dedicated 15 August 854; gifts.
105-107: St Peter’s. 108: St Martin’s (may be connected with a bull of
10 August 854); IV Coronati;

[indiction III winter: 854-855:]

St Peter’s. 109: Leopolis; St Mary’s vico Sardorum;

[indiction III summer, 855:]

St Peter’s. 110-112: receives Louis and holds court with him.

113: soon after Louis’s departure Leo dies on 17 July (855).

105. LEO IV

111

105. 1. LEO [IV; 10 April 847 - 17 July 855], 1 of Roman origin, son
of Raduald, 2 held the see 8 years 3 months 6 days. This man, so catholic
and apostolic, had much patience and much humility; bountiful, dutiful,
innocent and kind, a lover of justice and a most ardent governor of the
people, he was also an untiring searcher of the Scriptures and was ever
intent on watching and prayer; in his sacred breast there dwelt what we
read of in the holy gospel, the cunning of a serpent and the innocence
of a dove. 3 Filled with the beauty of all holiness, he was a lover of
religious men and of those who serve God assiduously in all things; he
was a mentor of the poor, a despiser of himself.

2. First of all for the study of letters he was freely given over by his
parents to Christ’s confessor St Martin’s monastery, 4 located outside this
city of Rome’s walls close to St Peter the apostle’s church, until he
fully learnt the sacred letters. And there he not merely learnt letters but
kept avidly at the study of holy behaviour, not as the boy he then was
but like a perfect monk. At the example of his godly behaviour others
who lived under the same monastic usage served the Lord almighty
more devoutly, and he was with them as one of them. 3. And since ‘a
city set on a hill cannot be hid’, 5 so too this holy man’s reputation could
not long stay secret. His fame and the esteem of his holiness were
broadcast hither and thither clearer than light, and on the report of many
of the faithful were then speedily relayed to the ears of Gregory [IV],
the former pontiff, blessed father and pope. When the mastery of such
great chastity and worthy behaviour was told him, he straightaway bade

1 The date of death is from c. 113; AB 855 Nelson 80 merely states that in August (s/c)
Leo died and Benedict succeeded; neither AF nor AX mention Leo’s accession. For the
tenure, MS Paris 5140 agrees with the LP; the Montecassino MS adds an extra day;
evidently the ordination was 10 April 847 (Easter Sunday); the preceding vacancy of 214
months tallies with Sergius’s death, 27 January. Older writers had Leo ordained the day
Sergius died, or the next day, but this does not fit these data. Leo’s election may have
followed Sergius’s death immediately (c. 6, but see n. 6). Cf. 104 n. 1.

2 The name suggests a family of Lombard origin.

3 Matthew 10.16 where the Vulgate has prudentes (wise) not astuti (cunning); the word
may be a reminiscence of its use at 2 Cor. 11.3 (the serpent that seduced Eve).

4 See 98 n. 138; Ferrari, 235 n. 12, speculates that Leo entered a kind of choir school,
possibly under the direction of the monks of St Martin’s. John, who was sent to England
c. 680, was both abbot of St Martin’s and archcantor of St Peter’s (on John’s activities
cf. Andrieu, Ordines Romani , 2.xxvii). Certainly this and the other monasteries provided
the choirs for St Peter’s. The later notion that Leo IV was brought up as a Benedictine
is mistaken; no Roman monastery can be truly called Benedictine at this date. The
monastery later received Leo’s benefactions (cc. 21, 93), was rebuilt by him (c. 108), and
granted a charter confirming its properties (n. 156).

5 Matthew 5.14.

112

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

him come forth from the monastery where he was piously living and
brought him to the bosom of holy mother church; so that he might ever
remain in his household service, he ordered him to be in the Lateran
patriarchate; and for the fame of his praiseworthy life he also made him
a subdeacon. But though he changed his place and order, yet he even
more than before constrained his life and character according to a rule,
and improved them by good works, in the service of our supreme
Creator. 4. On the death of Gregory, pope of this holy see, Sergius the
archpriest of the holy Roman church was then made prelate; this holy
pope made him of whom we have recounted some information above,
Leo that is to say, a priest, and bestowed on him the titulus of the SS
Quattuor Coronati. And while he was there, being effective in good
character and ministering what they needed to the poor, and reviving
pilgrims, the needy and the deprived, not only by word but also by
bodily sustenance, the then prelate Sergius, bishop of the Roman see,
was taken from this present life.

In his time the churches of the blessed princes Peter and Paul were
thoroughly plundered by the Saracens. 5. At this distress and
wretchedness all the vigour of the Romans melted away and was
broken. When this happened, because of the two occurrences and perils,
that is, the pontiffs sudden death and the plundering that had taken
place in the holy churches and the territories of all the Romans, the
whole gathering of the Romans said that there was no way for them to
escape the danger of death. With equal devotion and common
consultation all the Roman dignitaries thought about who would be the
next pontiff, who there might be that could rule and govern so holy and
inviolable a place in the fear of almighty God; suddenly the fame of the
blessed prelate and also his value was manifested to all, broadcast
through the whole city. 6. The late-departed pontiff had not yet been
taken to his proper burial, and lo! everyone from last to first with one
voice and one heart, demanded 6 the venerable priest Leo as their pontiff
to be, and with many protestations and much clamour they said they
would have none other over them as prelate but him whom we have
frequently mentioned. We believe it was nothing other than God’s love
and the clemency of God’s power that inflamed and united all their
hearts unhesitatingly to demand him. Then they all made their way with

6 On Leo’s election AB has no more than is quoted in n. 8. The LF implies that Leo was
elected the very day of Sergius’s death; but perhaps the compiler protests too much: the
election may not have been so unanimous. Some gap between election and ordination is
implied by the placing of c. 7. Leo’s ordination was carried out without Lothar’s approval
(c. 8, cf. AB)\ why then any delay? Admittedly, if the excuse about the Saracen peril (c.
8) was genuine, Rome may have become tired of waiting.

105. LEO IV

113

the joy and gladness of great eagerness to the church of the SS Quattuor
Coronati where, as is recorded above, he was living. They took him
from there by force and against his will, and with hymns and
distinguished acclamations of praise conducted him to the Lateran
patriarchate; and in keeping with ancient custom they all kissed his feet.
No man can tell in brief how great was the concord and unanimity at
his pontifical election.

7. It is not unfitting or blameworthy if as a fearful warning and a
record for time to come we note in this present account what at the time
of his election 7 God’s power, through the support of the apostles and
through his own prayers of intercession, did to those Saracens who
committed such a wicked crime. 8 For when after perpetrating their
wicked and devastating crime they all wanted to return to the African
region whence they had come, as we know from a sure report, God
allowed them to be overwhelmed in the empty vastness of the sea by the
force of winds and storms; and lo! the prayer of the apostles was worthy
to achieve anew that ancient miracle over the Egyptians. 9

8. The Romans too, as we have said, rejoiced in the new pontiffs
election, but began to be dismayed again in no small way, in that

7 This may mean ‘while he was pope-elect’, not at the time of his actual election.

8 The placing of the incident at this point suggests it is to be dated in February or March
847; AB 847 Nelson 64-5 also puts it after Leo’s election, but does not mention the
ordination: ‘The Saracens, their ships loaded down with the vast quantity of treasures they
had taken from St-Peter’s basilica, were on their way home, when during the sea-voyage
they blasphemed with their foul mouths against God and our Lord Jesus Christ and his
apostles. Suddenly there arose a terrible storm from which they could not escape, their
ships were dashed against each other, and all were lost. The sea tossed up some of the
corpses of the drowned Saracens on the shore, still clutching treasures to their breasts.
When these treasures were found, they were taken back to the tomb ( memoria ) of the
Blessed Apostle Peter.’ John, Gesta epp. Neap. 60-61 (cf. 104 n. 92) has: ‘They set off
but while they were furrowing the empty vastness the Lord raised up the south wind
which scattered and overwhelmed them, and very few of them returned to their homes’.
Cf. the legend in the Chronica S. Benedicti Casinensis 6 (cf. same note; MGH SSrL
472.37-473.6): ‘They set sail. When they were now so close to their province that they
could even see the mountains near at hand they came out with a sailor’s cheer as is their
wont. Then a boat appeared among them with two men on board, one of whom looked
like a cleric, the other was dressed as a monk. These said to them: ‘Where have you come
from and where are you going to?’ They replied: ‘We come back from Peter in Rome,
where we have laid waste his entire shrine {oratorium) and despoiled the people and the
region. We have defeated the Franks and burnt down Benedict’s cells. But tell us who you
are.’ They told them: ‘You will soon see who we are’. Straightway there was a strong
tempest and a mighty storm, so all the ships were smashed and all the enemy perished.
Not one of them remained to tell the tale to others. And so afterwards the venerable pope
Leo surrounded the shrine of St Peter with firm and lofty walls to stop any occurrence
like this ever happening at Rome again.’ This story seems to put the disaster off the
African coast; AB perhaps implies that it was off Italy or Sicily.

9 i.e. the Exodus and the drowning of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea.

114

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

without the emperor’s warrant 10 they dared not consecrate the pontiff to
be; they feared particularly that the city of Rome was again in danger,
just as it had been laid under siege by another enemy previously. 11
Frightened by this fear and future risk, they hallowed him as prelate
without the prince’s permission, while keeping their loyalty and honour
to him, after God, through and in all things.

9. Now as no human assessor is capable of calculating, and no human
tongue is able to report, how great this blessed pontiffs goodness and
piety was, let us return to what he presented, relying on the love of the
saints, to churches, and tell it from the very start of his pontificate.

This noteworthy and distinguished bishop, boiling with love from on
high, presented to St Peter the apostle’s basilica 1 fine silver crown
weighing 24 lb; 2 chased bowls weighing 2 lb; 7 veils, 2 of them of
interwoven gold, 2 of cross-adorned silk and 3 of Spanish. 12 There he
presented for the brightness and glory of that venerable basilica 1
alexandrian curtain of wondrous beauty representing peacocks carrying
men on top, and another representation of eagles and wheels and birds
with trees.

10. In the basilica of the SS Quattuor Coronati, in which he had
skilfully performed his sacerdotal office, this outstanding and wise pope
presented 3 fine silver canisters, weighing .. lb, fine silver handbasin 1
pair, weighing .. lb; an incense-boat with 1 censer, weighing .. lb; 12
gold-interwoven veils which to its splendour hang in the church’s
arches; and 34 white silk veils. In the same basilica for the brightness
of the holy altar 13 he provided an all-silk cloth with a gold-studded
fringe and another white cloth with roses, with 7 wheels and in the
middle a gold-studded panel with the effigy of a man wearing 5 jewels,

10 Required by the Constitutio of 824, on which see the introduction to life 101. Eugene’s
oath then and Leo’s now are mentioned in the Privilegium Ottonis of 962 (Sickel
1883.181, cf. 158 0 according to the contents of the pact, constitution and signed
promise of the pontiff Eugene and his successors, i.e. that all the clergy and nobility of
the whole Roman people, on account of various needs and to repress the unreasonable
asperities of the pontiffs towards the people subject to them, must bind themselves by oath
as far as the understanding of each of them extends that the election of pontiffs must in
future take place canonically and justly; and that no one will consent to him who is
elected to this holy and apostolic rule being consecrated pontiff until in the presence of
our envoys or of our son or the whole commonalty he make a promise for the satisfaction
of all and the future safety, such as our lord and venerable spiritual father Leo is known
freely to have done.’

11 Given that the Saracen fleet had just sunk, this excuse seems disingenuous, but there
may have been other bands of Saracens on the loose. No further attack is reported until
848-9 (cc. 48-54).

12 See 103:11 and the glossary.

n The preceding items were evidently for the body of the church.

105. LEO IV

115

prases, on his head; and a white gold-studded cloth with 6 wheels. In
the same basilica for the holy altar’s honour and glory he provided 4
veils 14 with gold-studded crosses and chevrons; 17 silk veils with
wheels, 4 of them with gold-studded chevrons, and with 33 jewels and
golden pommels; 1 needlework veil with the effigy of a man sitting on
a peacock; 3 veils representing God’s holy mother; 14 other gold-
interwoven veils; and 2 other purple veils.

11. In God’s holy mother’s basilica in what is called the Vicus
Sardorum, 15 this notable and blessed pope presented a gold-interwoven
cloth representing God’s holy mother in gold-studding, with the
prophets.

This God-beloved and wise pope constructed sedilia of marble at the
entrance to the patriarchate, which none of the pontiffs had thought to
accomplish. As for the veranda 16 which pope Leo III of blessed memory
had constructed, its beams were broken from its great age and it was
seen to be overwhelmed in ruins, so he newly restored it more
beautifully with an improved appearance.

12. In St Paul the apostle’s basilica this noteworthy and godly bishop,
relying on love from on high, laid down that vespers 17 were to be
publicly chanted by all the clergy and the schola on his feastday.

In this blessed prelate’s time an earthquake occurred in Rome in the
10th indiction [846-847], so that everyone saw all the elements shaken.

The same skilful pontiff, following ancient custom, decreed and laid
down with canonical authority that while the holy ceremonies of mass
were being celebrated none of the laity should presume to stand, sit or
enter in the presbyterium, but only the holy people 18 who are established
for ministering in the holy office.

13. After the slaughter and plunder which the savage race of the

4 i.e. one for each side of the altar ( tetravela)\ textiles in this life are frequently in groups
of four, four times for this church (here, c. 22, and c. 42 twice), and for many other
churches (e.g. five times in c. 62 alone).

15 This Vicus Sardorum was 30 miles from Rome (see c. 86), but it is not known where;
it is not the Vicus Sardorum within Rome where there was the monastery de Sardas ,
whose oratory was dedicated to St Vitus (98:78).

16 Cf. 98:92.

17 The monks of the two monasteries attached to St Paul’s (St Caesarius’s and St
Stephen’s) will have chanted their own daily vespers, quite probably in the basilica. Leo
IV now instituted a stational vespers such as was celebrated in St Peter’s during Easter
week. The Roman clergy and the schola cantorum would be expected take part as they
did at those vespers (and at stational masses on many occasions in the year). If the notice
is placed chronologically, Leo’s rule may have been made on St Paul’s feast (30 June) in
847: an event of the 10th indiction (ending August 847) is mentioned just below, and cc.
18-19 are dated 15 August 847.

18 sacra plebs means the clergy; cf. 102 n. 14.

116

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Agareni carried out in the holy apostles’ churches, 19 this blessed pontiff
every day stretched his mind to their restoration, that he might replace
all that their ungodly hands had stolen, hoping to enjoy an eternal
reward in recompense. So in St Peter the apostle’s basilica he presented
a fine silver cluster, with silver bowls hanging on 7 chains. For the
lighting of this basilica he provided a bronze net with 17 silver
canisters. He replaced a light of wondrous size for the brightness and
glory of the same church. In it he also presented a fine silver crown
weighing .. lb; 25 gold-interwoven veils, beautiful ones which hang in
the area around the holy altar; 10 veils representing lions, which can be
seen hanging in front of the vestibule of the sacred confessio; 46 other
gold-interwoven veils which gleam between this venerable basilica’s
columns to right and left; 33 gold-interwoven veils which hang in the
arches for the decoration and adornment of the presbyterium ; and 18
other gold-interwoven veils which this bountiful pope arranged to hang
in various parts of this basilica; and 3 other veils which hang in front
of the sacred basilica’s doors.

14. In the basilica of the martyrs SS Quattuor Coronati this
noteworthy and wise prelate, relying on love from on high, provided a
gold-studded cloth representing our lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection, with
effigies of these martyrs and of the bountiful prelate himself.

The mind of this vigilant 20 prelate shone so greatly with God’s love
that with willing breast he wanted to restore anew in his distinguished
time all the uncountable goods which ungodly hands had formerly stolen
from St Peter the apostle’s church. So for this church’s beauty and
honour he provided 2 fine silver crowns, crafted with wondrous work,
hanging on silver chains, with jewels and gilt pommels, 1 weighing 132
lb, the other 130, 1 with 37 silver clamasterii hanging beneath it, the
other with 40. 15. He who was ever bedecked with God’s gift and
endeavoured to have worthy care and anxiety for everything, happily
provided in St Andrew the apostle’s oratory 21 at St Peter’s 2 great gold-
interwoven veils and 5 other small ones, decorated around with purple.

This God-protected, venerable and distinguished pontiff, for the

19 Nothing is in fact said about Leo IV’s restorations at St Paul’s until c. 96, though,
surprisingly, c. 12 has just referred to minor liturgical arrangements.

20 gregorii (so MS D, almost contemporary with the original), a remarkable use of the
word in its etymological sense, not understood by the copyists of MSS CE who substituted
egregii. Duchesne acutely spotted the same use in Bili the deacon, Vita Maglorii , prol.,
who dedicated his work to his ‘vigilant’ bishop, Ratuili of Alet, c. 870.

21 This is the basilica founded by pope Symmachus (LP 53:6, BP 45) in the 2nd- or 3rd-
century mausoleum immediately southeast of the transept of St Peter’s; it was demolished
in 1590 (Hulsen, Chiese , 190).

105. LEO IV

117

eternal redemption of his soul, provided in St Anastasius’s monastery 22
1 gold-interwoven silk cloth representing eagles; also 2 gold-interwoven
veils embellished round with purple. Also he provided in St Praxedes’s
monastery 23 1 gold-interwoven cloth.

16. As for the old and ancient rites and ordinances of the sacred
palace, various customs which in the time of the pontiffs his
predecessors had been broken and abolished, this prelate, from the day
when, relying on God’s power, he ascended with all kindness Peter the
apostle’s holy see, therefore keenly and with willing mind tried to
restore them all, or to improve their recent condition, as a memorial to
his holiness. Lord pope Leo III of good memory had constructed from
the ground a dining room 24 and had equipped it with all its adornments,
but then because of great age and the unawareness of his predecessor
pontiffs these had been removed, and on the day of the Nativity of our
Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh neither lord Gregory nor lord
Sergius of holy memory had ever dined there. This blessed and supreme
prelate Leo IV with joy and great delight newly replaced all the
adornments and dining equipment which had been removed from there
and magnificently recalled it to its ancient use. 17. What is more,
Charles of godly memory, emperor of the Franks and Romans, had in
the time of lord pope Leo III of holy memory presented in the Saviour
our Lord Jesus Christ’s basilica called Constantinian a fine gold cross 25
adorned with jewels; the custom was that in litanies it went in front of
the holy pontiff, and so it continued till the time of lord pope Paschal,
when at the devil’s suggestion and instigation evil men carried it off and
thieves stealthily took it away from there at night, and thereafter none
of his predecessor pontiffs, not lord Paschal nor lord Eugene nor lord
Valentine nor lord Gregory nor lord Sergius, thought to restore and
replace it for the use of God’s holy Roman church. But this magnificent
prelate made it of fine gold and adorned it as necessary with pearls and
jewels, jacinths and prases, of wondrous size, and replaced it
magnificently for the ancient use of God’s holy Roman church.

18. This 26 distinguished and noteworthy prelate was a most approved

22 Cf 97 n. 189.

23 See 100:9-11.

24 Duchesne identified this accubitus with the triclinium with 11 apses in 98:39 (with n.
89). It could as well be Leo’s other, better-known, triclinium (98:10 with n. 21).

25 Cf. 98:25 again, with n. 65. Two crosses were required to precede the pope at the
Major Litany on 25 April; Andrieu, Ordines Romani , 3.248, Ordo 21.10 (cf. 3.236, Ordo
20.7). For the other cross see c. 28.

26 Note the repetition of the eulogy before the account of Leo’s works is continued; cf
lives 106 and 107.

118

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

preacher of God’s scriptures with knowledge and learning. He shone
with such great blessedness and holiness that he wrought wonders in the
sight of the whole people of this church founded on Christ. In the first
year of his pontificate, close to St Lucy the martyr’s basilica 27 in
Orphea, in some noisome and hidden caverns arose a serpent of dire sort
called basilisk in Greek and regulus 28 in Latin; by its breath and glance
it speedily overwhelmed all who went into those caves and gave them
over to danger of death, so that amazement and terror attacked all who
gazed on the serpent’s might and penetrating power. 19. This blessed
and distinguished pontiff heard how the people were overwhelmed and
destroyed, and turned himself to prayer. Unceasingly he besought the
Lord with fasting to deliver all men from destruction of this kind. While
this was happening, the distinguished and notable day arrived on which
God’s blessed mother the ever-virgin Mary’s assumption is celebrated.
Then this universal pope made his way on foot with the clergy from the
patriarchate to St Hadrian the martyr’s basilica, as is the custom, 29 with
hymns and spiritual chants, going ahead of the holy icon. Returning
thence with the whole gathering of the faithful he made his way to our
Lord and God Jesus Christ’s holy mother’s called Praesepe , with God’s
praises, and a great assemblage of people accompanying him. When he
reached the place where the savage basilisk lay, in noisome caverns as
we have already said above, he ordered all the clergy and people to halt,

27 On this ‘basilica’ see 103:21 with n. 43.

28 Leo’s exorcism of a basilisk has been described as ‘legendary’, an epithet which does
not fit well with a contemporary account. The LP does not state that anyone who saw the
creature lived to tell the tale. The escape of methane from the mounds of rubbish which
underlay many of the habitations of 9th-century Rome might have caused the phenomena
mentioned. For ancient ideas on the (kxaiXicnccK; cf. Heliodorus3.8 (Everyman, pp. 76-7):
‘you have doubtless heard how the serpent called ‘the basilisk’ by its mere breath and
glance will shrivel and cripple whatever comes in its way’; cf. Pliny, NH 8.21.
Speculation about such a creature is pointless.

29 The processions on the Marian feastdays (2 February, 25 March, 15 August, 8
September) had been instituted by Sergius I (86:14, BP 87). The custom of carrying the
sancta icona , the Lateran acheiropoieta image, must have been introduced soon after: in
752 (94.11) it was carried in a procession to St Mary Major. The present occasion is 15
August 847; by the 12th century the icon was carried only in the procession on that day.
This may already have been the case in the 9th century, though Duchesne’s argument that
this was so in 752-3 is not convincing. He noted another peculiarity of the procession on
15 August, its celebration at night before matins, while the others were held in the
morning before the stational mass; and here Leo IV arrives at St Mary Major ‘to display
God’s praises ( laudes)\ an expression suggesting the office (lauds) rather than mass; if
so the peculiarities of the procession on 15 August were earlier than 847, and not
instituted to commemorate the occurrence here dealt with. A short poem ‘On the
Assumption of St Mary, on the night when the tabula is carried’ was written under Otto
III (ed. Di Costanzo 1797:422). Abuses that crept into this nocturnal ceremony induced
Pius V to abolish it.

105. LEO IV

119

we have already said above, he ordered all the clergy and people to halt,
and making his way close to these caverns, he halted fearlessly over the
cleft from which the breath of that plague-bearing serpent emerged.
Raising eyes and hands to heaven, with abundant tears he besought
Christ who is God above all to put to flight by his power the dire kind
of serpent from that place. And giving out the prayer over the people
he set out to the basilica we have mentioned above to display God’s
praises. 30 But from that very day the death-dealing basilisk was put to
flight and expelled from those caves so that there appeared no farther
trace of its damage in those places.

20. This bountiful pope performed another wonder; let us begin to tell
it briefly. At the very start of his pontificate which we have recorded
above, a mighty fire attacked the vicus of the Saxons, which by the
power of its flames began to bum everything mightily; many rows of
people gathered there, wanting to quench the fire’s flames. But the
breath of the winds made the fire reach high into the sky, burning and
reducing everything so that it came to near St Peter the apostle’s
basilica, consuming and wrecking the homes of the Saxons and
Lombards 31 and the portico. Hearing this, the blessed pontiff set out
thither in speed and haste, put himself in the path of the fire’s force,
and began to beseech the Lord to quench the fire’s flames. When he
made the sign of the cross with his own fingers, the fire could spread
its flames no further; unable to endure the blessed pontiffs power, it
was quenched and reduced its flames to ash. 32

21. In St Peter the apostle’s basilica this God-beloved and wise pope
provided 45 gold-interwoven veils, surrounded with purple. In St
Martin’s monastery 33 attached to St Peter the apostle’s basilica, for the
praise and glory of St Martin’s shrine this outstanding pontiff provided
a cloth representing that saint lying on a bier, with the effigy of the
Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ, also the effigy of St Agatha the martyr
with the effigy of this bountiful pontiff at its feet, with 17 jacinth
jewels. In the same oratory he provided 4 veils, and one 34 with 3 gold-
studded roses.

22. In the holy Four Brethren’s basilica 35 he provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth representing these holy martyrs and the effigy of the

30 This may mean ‘to celebrate lauds (matins)’; see last note.

31 Cf. n. 49 to 98:19.

32 Some chemical theory about the nature of flame may be implied.

33 Cf. cc. 2-3.

34 Perhaps one of the four, though possibly a fifth is meant.

35 SS Quattro Coronati, reckoned to be brothers; for their names see n. 62.

120

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

great prelate himself, with 12 jewels; also 4 gold-interwoven veils.

In St Peter the apostle his mentor’s basilica, this venerable and
distinguished pontiff provided chased fine silver canisters weighing.. lb.
There too he presented fine silver crowns weighing .. lb. Relying on
love from on high, this blessed and distinguished pope presented to St
Peter the apostle for the splendour and glory of this sacred basilica a
fine silver lantern with two wicks, weighing 45 lb; there too, after the
Saracens’ savage looting, he provided in this basilica fine silver railings
weighing 57 lb.

23. In St Silvester the confessor and pontiffs church 36 on Mount
Soracte this blessed prelate provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth with 4
comers, 2 of tyrian and 2 of interwoven gold.

In St Peter the prince of the apostle’s church this holy and blessed
prelate provided 18 gold-worked veils, representing St Peter, which
hang in the arches of the presbyterium . Also in St Leo the confessor and
pontiffs oratory 37 within this church, 1 gold-interwoven cloth
representing eagles. There too he presented 1 silver crown weighing ..
lb; he also provided the 20 gold-interwoven veils, decorated on each
side with purple. 24. To St Peter the apostle he presented 16 silver
chalices, which are set above the surround of the altar, weighing .. lb;
also a hanging chalice with chains and dolphins, weighing .. lb. So after
the Saracens’ looting of this church this holy and angelic prelate also
provided 3 silver images, all of them gilded, at St Peter the apostle’s
body: one of them with an effigy in the middle of the Saviour our Lord
Jesus Christ, decorated on the head in the form of a cross with jewels,
jacinths and prases; another, placed on the Saviour’s right side, with the
face of St Peter the apostle and of St Petronilla; the other, on the left
side, depicting the face of St Andrew the apostle and the face of this
supreme prelate, weighing 104 lb. There too he provided 12 bronze
lights which are set over the holy altar’s vestibule.

25. Often this blessed pope greatly yearned to rebuild all the locations
of the saints which had been destroyed. As for the monastery
Corsarum , 38 which is close to St Xystus the martyr and pontiffs

36 On this church and its monastery see 103:12 with n. 25.

37 See c. 31 and n. 53.

38 ‘Locations of saints’ should refer to cemeteries. The connexion in thought may be that
relics were transferred from cemeteries to within the city. The monastery may have been
seen as virtually an annexe of S. Sisto Vecchio, and it does seem that in the 9th century
(or later) relics of Xystus II and some other 3rd-century popes were transferred to S.
Sisto: an undated and now lost inscription referred to this (Zucchi 1938:1.330;
Krautheimer, Corpus 4.165 ); another inscription listed relics under the high altar. On the
monastery see 98:79 and nn. 158-9; n. 88 below; Ferrari, 96-102.

105. LEO IV

121

basilica, it had been abandoned through the works of evil men 39 and
reduced to a secular dwelling; for his soul’s salvation and future reward
he restored it perfectly, and in it he established a congregation of God’s
handmaids to fulfil daily praises to almighty God, increased it with
gifts, adorned it with riches, and, restoring by his holy commands all
that had been stolen from it, he fully confirmed it all with his sacred
hand.

26. This oft-mentioned blessed pope brought many to the knowledge
of the truth by his addresses and preaching, 40 and daily displayed
wholesome activities to all. The octave day of God’s blessed mother’s
assumption 41 had never before been kept at Rome; he ordered it to be
celebrated, spending the night in sacred vigils and in morning praises
with all the clergy, in the same ever-virgin our lady’s basilica outside
the walls close to St Laurence the martyr’s basilica. 42 In it there
gathered a great multitude of the people, yearning to celebrate the new
festivity’s ceremony. When this magnanimous bishop saw it, he
dispensed silver in full to all who were present at this celebration. 27.

39 Perhaps this is merely a stock expression, though Ferrari, 98 n. 5, suspects that it
masks ‘interesting circumstances’.

40 Duchesne noted the possible relevance to this passage of a sermon on priests’ duties
(J2659; Mansi 14.889; PL 96.1375, 115.675; Neues Archiv. VI p. 192, 652) which in
some collections bears the name ‘pope Leo’ or even ‘Leo IV*. But he doubted whether
it was of papal origin; it shows no traces of Roman usages; it supposes a diocese divided
into many rural parishes; the bishop calls himself vicar of the apostles, not vicar of St
Peter, etc. Its genuineness was accepted however by Jaff6-Ewald.

41 The feast itself had been celebrated at Rome since at least the late 7th century (as the
‘Dormition’, 86:14 BP 87), but was by no means universal in the west (AB 862 Nelson
101-2 records that it had not hitherto been celebrated in the diocese of Thdrouanne, even
though the metropolitan church at Rheims was dedicated to the Virgin); the Gregorian
music is mainly borrowed from other feasts (e.g. the introit belongs to St Agatha) and the
prayers tend to vary in different manuscripts of the Roman rite, both signs of late
acceptance. Leo’s purpose in instituting an Octave (22 August) may have been to
commemorate the incident in cc. 19ff.

42 Cf. 97 n. 77. St Laurence’s here is the surviving building of Pelagius II (LP 65, BP
61) above the martyr’s tomb, which now forms the choir at the east of the basilica whose
nave is of the early 13th century; Duchesne, believing that this nave dated to the 5th
century, identified it with St Mary’s mentioned here. In fact St Mary’s was the name
acquired (in the LP, first at 97:64) by the huge Constantinian basilica just south of
Pelagius’s church, whose foundations were still undiscovered in Duchesne’s time. In St
Mary’s were the three oratories named in c. 27. It is mentioned several times in life 105
but not later; clearly little importance was afterwards attached to it. Fire damage seen in
the excavations may be of this date (Krautheimer, Corpus 2.138). Krautheimer believes
that the dedication to St Mary was made in the late 8th century to give the basilica a
function; following Josi, he notes an entry in the Reichenau MS (Zurich, Kantonsbibl.,
Hist. 28) of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Aa SS Nov. II.i.101, 417): ‘5 August,
dedication of the basilica of St Mary, Justin and Crescentia’; Justin and Crescentia were
martyrs venerated in this very basilica. But 5 August is the dedication of St Mary Major,
and the MS entry probably results from a confusion.

122

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

At the same God’s mother the ever-virgin Mary’s this blessed man
provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth; and he provided 45 veils 43 there.
Inside 44 this church in the oratory called St Barbara’s he presented 1
gold-interwoven cloth. In the same church’s oratory of St Nicholas he
donated 1 gold-interwoven cloth. In St Eugenia’s oratory 45 this God-
distinguished bishop provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth. In St Stephen
the first martyr’s church 46 outside the wall close to St Laurence the
martyr’s church, with God’s help this skilful, holy, totally distinctive
and distinguished man with great spirit and pure intention donated 1
gold-interwoven cloth; within this church’s walls, in St Leo the martyr’s
oratory, he provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth.

28. In God’s mother the ever-virgin our lady St Mary’s church within
the said monastery Corsarum , this mild pontiff, keen on all good things,
presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth; there too, in St Caesarius’s oratory
he presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth.

This kind man newly provided a gold cross; 47 the cross, as was the
custom of old, was carried in the hands of the subdeacons in front of
the horse of the pontiffs his predecessors, and, God willing it, he
replaced it better in gold, silver and jewels.

29. In the church of St Nympha the martyr 48 in the city of Porto he

Krautheimer (Corpus 2.138 n. 3) wants to read ‘65’, in view of Hadrian’s sets of 65
curtains for the same basilica (97:64). He argues (2.119) that the nave had 24 columns
each side (so, with the end piers, 50 intercolumniations); the semicircular inner-apse rested
probably on 6 columns with 7 intercolumniations; and the facade had either 3 or 5 arches.
65 curtains would provide for all these with a few to spare.

44 Or ‘below’ (infra). The location of St Barbara’s is not known well enough to resolve
this ambiguity, infra at the end of the chapter must surely mean ‘within’.

45 The context suggests that this was another oratory in the same basilica.

46 On this church see 97:75 with n. 151.

47 This is the second of the two crosses required at the Major Litany, cf. c. 17.

48 St Nympha’s at Porto, first mentioned here, recurs in a charter of Benedict VIII on 1
August 1018 confirming the privileges and properties of the bishopric of Porto (J4024);
this shows it was on the seashore near Fiumicino (focem Miccina)\ the same words recur
in a grant of Leo IX on 22 April 1049 (J4163). There is no ancient evidence for a St
Nympha; she is a personification of the place name ad Nymphas, between the Via
Cornelia and the Via Portuensis. Her Passion (BHL 6254-6) is therefore historically
valueless, but it mentions Porto, a place close to Buccina, a crypt near a tall pine-tree, and
the church built there. Baronius noted that ad Nymphas was commonly called Sancta
Nympha, and that traces of the ancient church could be seen there. At it were some fine
underground conduits, and he suggested that the place took its name from the abundance
of water; he visited it, found the place deserted and the shore abandoned. In 1703 C. B.
Piazza (La Gerarchia cardinalizia, 59) wrote that the saint was still remembered in the
woods not far from Porto, with a church to her, restored from its ruins by Cardinal
Francesco Barberini, and a marble statue of her. The origins of the cult are unknown. Her
head was said to have been taken by the Saracens to Syria when they looted Porto, and
brought back by an ex-Jew in 896. Her body is said to have been taken to S. Maria in

105. LEO IV

123

provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth. In SS Cosmas and Damian the
martyrs’ church 49 at Silva Candida he provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth;
there too he provided 4 gold-interwoven veils, decorated around with
purple.

This blessed pope used to visit the tombs of the holy martyrs
devoutly and with assiduously burning breast; and he prayed to them in
vigils and sacred prayers for all the people of the orthodox faith. 30.
One day, when he had come to St Laurence the martyr’s tomb and had
completed the prayer in the usual way, he began to inquire diligently
and to say: ‘How many monks are there here who render praises to
almighty God every day?’ Then all those present mentioned to the
blessed pontiff that two monasteries 50 had been constructed there by
some pontiffs but had been reduced to abandonment by great want and
poverty. Then this bountiful pontiff, spurred by the Will from on high,
restored the monastery now called that of SS Stephen and Cassian 51 and
decorated it opulently with gifts and riches. In it he established many
monks of Greek race 52 and of holy behaviour, who might fulfil day and
night the praises to almighty God and that martyr.

31. Inside St Peter the apostle’s basilica this God-protected and
venerable prelate constructed a shrine 53 of wondrous beauty and supreme
comeliness. Surrounding it with beautiful marble he splendidly
embellished it, and he gloriously adorned its apse in mosaic with gold
colour overlaid. In it he buried St Leo the confessor and pontiffs body,
constructed a holy altar above, and relying on this love he completed a
canopy with gilded crosses to the praise and glory of Christ’s name, so
he might acquire himself a worthy place in heaven.

Montecellis in 1098 (in the presence of Anselm archbishop of Canterbury), though this
church was only consecrated between 1099 and 1118 (Duchesne, LP 11.305). Her relics
appeared elsewhere in the early 12th century. Her head was taken to Palermo in 1593. Her
body is said to have been placed at S. Spirito in Sassia. See Delehaye, AaSS Nov. IV,
327-328.

49 This church is mentioned in Leo IV’s bull of 854, on which see n. 156.

5(1 On these monasteries see 98:77 with nn. 143-144.

51 Apparently Leo united the two monasteries into one, hence the double dedication,
Kxautheimer, Corpus 2.12, Ferrari 182-3, 187.

52 Still visible embedded in one of the ambos at St Laurence’s is a reused Greek
inscription from the second half of the ninth century (CIG 8832): +EFI... XENIOX
HTOYMENOX EK NEAX ETIOIHXA TO I1PEXBYTEPION TON...: ‘Under..., I, Arsenius
hegumenus , renewed the presbyterium '; see Ferrari 183, 187.

53 The text suggests a foundation, but the oratory already existed (cf. c, 23 above, 95:6,
98:84, 87), nor is there any reason to suppose that Leo IV moved its location. Leo had
been the first pope to be buried in the exterior narthex of St Peter’s; Sergius I had moved
his body to a new shrine inside the basilica on 28 June 688 as is known from 86:12 BP
86, and a still extant inscription (text in Duchesne I, 379 n. 35).

124

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

32. Once all these works whose details have now been individually
written or recorded above were achieved and completed, straightaway
this outstanding shepherd and father, though he bore advantageous care
and worthy anxiety for all God’s churches 54 and was more than anyone
intent on every good work, drew deep sighs from his inmost heart, since
every day he beheld St Peter the prince of the apostles’ sacred altar
violated and reduced to such dishonour and vileness by the infidel
Saracens, God’s enemies, and also because, as we tell in sorrow and
mourning, the Christian people who on all sides headed for the said
prince’s sacred home for the sake of prayer or grace were for this
reason not as fully zealous to fulfil their vows as they used to be. So,
relying on the almighty Lord’s help and strengthened by his counsel and
power, he very fittingly and honourably decorated with gold and silver
panels not only the holy confessio but also the front of that altar, as the
present work dedicated there proves in every way clearer than light. 33.
For this reason he encompassed all of the altar’s distinguished front with
panels freshly dedicated in excellent gold, 55 and with a great number of
excellent and precious jewels: he improved the condition and beauty it
had previously had. On these panels, which as has been said are of gold,
not only does a depiction of the form of our Redeemer shine forth but
also his venerable resurrection and the sign of his holy and saving cross,
and likewise the faces of Peter and Paul and of Andrew gleam and
glisten on the same panels; among them are depicted the venerable
persons, dear to God for ever and ever, of the holy prelate Leo IV and
of his spiritual son the lord emperor Lothar, for their memorial and
reward in time to come. 34. TTiese worked panels weigh 216 lb of
refined gold. In the same way with ail the devotion of his mind he
brought this altar’s confessio to its ancient glory and condition with
panels prepared in fine silver; on them we see the Saviour sitting on a
throne with precious jewels on his head, on his right are depicted the
Cherubim and on his left the faces of the apostles and of others. The
railings of the holy confessio are also constructed of silver, with the
faces of SS Peter and Paul, all weighing 208 lb. 35. In St Peter the
apostle’s basilica this God-beloved and wise pontiff provided 11 gold-
worked veils of purple, hanging in all the arches around. In St Leo the

54 Cf. 2 Cor. 11.28.

55 In the 12th century, the canon Romanus, interpolator of Mallius (De Rossi, Inscr.
christ. II p. 202), stated that this part of the decoration was still to be seen: ‘He had a
tablet of gold and enamel made, weighing 216 lb of gold, on which is contained the old
and new testament; and he set it on the front of the altar; this too we also saw’. The last
words may imply that the gold panelling had disappeared before he wrote.

105. LEO IV

125

pontiffs oratory inside St Peter the apostle’s church he provided 1
white silk cloth, medallioned, with chevrons and a fringe of purple; also
2 large white veils and 8 small ones.

In the monastery of St Caesarius in Palatio 56 he provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth and 8 veils.

In St Agatha the martyr’s cemetery 57 outside St Pancras the martyr’s
Gate, this God-protected and venerable pontiff for the reward and
recompense of his soul presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth and 8 veils.

36. Who can say, who is capable of telling, how many gifts this God-
protected and skilful pope devoutly presented to the holy places? In the
oratory called that of pope Paul he presented 1 cloth of wondrous
beauty, representing eagles, with a gold-studded cross and chevrons. In
the oratory of SS Processus and Martinian he presented 1 cloth of no
little splendour, with wheels and men and a representation of the cross
also of gold-studding and chevrons; in St Petronilla’s basilica he
achieved 1 other cloth of bright aspect, with wheels and eagles with a
gold-studded cross and chevrons. 37. In God’s mother the ever-virgin
our lady St Mary’s oratory, established at Mediana, he presented 1
cloth, also with wheels and eagles with a gold-studded cross and
chevrons. In St Hadrian’s oratory 58 he provided 1 cloth with wheels,
effigies of men, also with a gold-studded cross and chevrons.

56 Dedications at Rome of monasteries and oratories to St Caesarius have caused
confusion. Hitherto the style is used in connexion with two monasteries, that at St Paul’s
(98:77), and the oratory in that known as de Corsas (98:79, 105:28). Also dedicated to
St Caesarius, though neither occurs in the donation list of 807, were an oratory in the
Lateran patriarchate (96:9, 104:25) and an oratory in the imperial palace on the Palatine
(86:2 BP 83). It seems that the latter (presumably after 807) became the nucleus of a
Greek monastery (Ferrari, 88-91). Einhard relates (Translatio bb. Marcellini et Petri , PL
104.542) that his notary, sent to Rome in 828, conferred with one Basil, a monk who had
come from Constantinople to Rome two years earlier ‘and had his dwelling there on the
Palatine hill with his four disciples among the Greeks who were of the same profession’;
Einhard does not mention the name of the monastery; it is first called St Caesarius’s here
in the LP. About 866 a monk Blasius of Amorium, representing Bulgarian interests in
Rome, was received by the superior (Eustratus) and spent 18 years at the taxupa too
£ v86£,oo Kaiaapi'oo. St Caesarius’s on the Palatine was where St Sabas the Younger died
at the end of the 10th century. There was other Greek settlement nearby (cf. the churches
of S. Maria Antiqua, St. Theodore’s, St George in Veiabro, S. Maria in Cosmedin). The
precise location is uncertain; Ferrari, 90-91 prefers the identification of Bartoli who
discovered some Byzantine frescoes under the western wing of the Villa Mills; Hiilsen,
Chiese, 232, placed the monastery in the centre of Domitian’s stadium; Armellini-
Cecchelli, Chiese , 1276, follows Bartoli; Krautheimer, Corpus 1.113, suspends judgment.

57 Symmachus’s foundation (LP 53:8 BP 45), a cemeterial basilica on the Via Aurelia at
the farm Lardarius.

58 This is the chapel in which Hadrian I was buried. Romanus (cf. n. 55) interpolated
Mallius’s text to give this oratory, as in the LP, a dedication to St Hadrian. The
explanation could be that some time after pope Hadrian’s death in 795 an altar was built
at his tomb in honour of the homonymous martyr.

126

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

effigies of men, also with a gold-studded cross and chevrons.

In St Sebastian the martyr’s basilica at Frascati 59 this oft-mentioned
and blessed pope presented 1 cloth of precious brightness, also with a
gold-studded cloth and chevrons.

In St Peter the apostle’s basilica this supreme and distinctive prelate
provided 1 all-silk curtain with many representations of immeasurable
brightness, for this holy basilica’s beauty and glory.

38. When the blessed man and prelate Leo IV had, with God’s
comfort and with the grace of love and desire, perfectly conferred these
and the other things above-written on the various localities of the godly
saints, he then began with the consultation of the Lord Jesus Christ to
treat of the condition of the city of Rome and the restoration of the
wails which by long old age were broken to age and utterly destroyed,
in case, if it stayed for long in this neglect and forgetfulness, they could
easily with the Lord permitting it be captured or perhaps stormed by an
enemy. So, in case this evil should occur in time to come, he took care
with all the mind of alacrity to renew to their former standard and
beauty all the walls of this city of Rome in the 12th [848-849] and the
present indiction. And he ordered not only the walls we have mentioned
to be made with speed and agility, but for fear of enemies he also bade
that the gates with which the whole city is often closed be quickly
rebuilt to a new standard and with very strong timbers. 39. So that all
these things might be brought to completion and rendered beautiful, this
apostolic man bustled about with his loyal men without discrimination,
not simply staying at ground level but even going on his own feet along
the walls and gates, so that in their restoration there might arise no
hesitation or delay. So, as has been said, the venerable pontiff had
amongst other things the greatest care and anxiety for the city of Rome,
and on all sides he brought it to a new and better standard: he ordered
15 towers which he found utterly destroyed round the circuit of the city
to be restored from the ground with fresh building. The venerable
prelate arranged that two of these be built close to the Portuensis Gate
by the very shore of the Tiber, that is close to the river bank, so wisely

explanation could be that some time after pope Hadrian’s death in 795 an altar was built
at his tomb in honour of the homonymous martyr.

59 This is the first mention anywhere of the name Frascati. The place was in the territory
of Tusculum. The local bishopric was Labicum Quintanenses at the 15th mile of the Via
Labicana: the bishop attended the Roman Council in 313. In the 7th century the bishops
began instead to use the title Tusculum, which was in their territory. When Tusculum was
destroyed in 1191 they moved to Frascati, whose real importance dates from that time
(Lanzoni, 126). St Sebastian’s was the cathedral of Frascati until 1708 and, now dedicated
to St Roche, it is known as the duomo vecchio.

105. LEO IV

127

and prudently as no one previously could think or consider doing.
Beforehand not only ships but men as well easily entered by this place,
but now small boats will hardly ever be able to come in by it. This was
done because of the coming danger of the Saracens and for the city of
Rome’s safety. 40, So he took care to strengthen this tower not only
with stones but with iron as well so that, should the need occur, no ship
could cross through this place. This freshly constructed work provides
both defence for the city of Rome and for viewers no small wonder but
a large one, as it was done with great prudence, subtle wisdom and
honour.

41. For almighty God’s honour this God-protected and blessed pope
with supreme endeavour and supreme affection of heart wonderfully
assembled inside this beloved city’s walls many bodies of the saints
which had long lain unvenerated. With skilful care he sought and
found 60 the bodies of the martyrs the SS Quattuor Coronati. The basilica
which had been consecrated to the name of the saints, and which until
he was brought to the summit of the pontificate he ruled with wise
government, was shaken through the long courses of time by the failing
of age and, almost broken into ruins, was seen to be convulsed for a
long time past; for their desirable love, by the will of the Clemency of
the Power on high, he brought it from the ground to a more splendid
and more beautiful state, for almighty God’s praise. 61 As for their holy
bodies - with 62 Claudius, Nicostratus, Simphronianus and Castorius, and

60 The text does not say where he found them; cf. 103:6. That they were once venerated
at SS Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana is clear from the Itineraries. But they
may have been brought to the basilica on the Caelian Hill before the 9th century;
Delehaye, Mart. Hieron ., Aa SS Nov. II.ii.231.

61 The ancient building was a 4th-century aisleless apsed hall, perhaps, in view of LP
72:4 BP 64, not made into a church until the time of pope Honorius (who was possibly
replacing an earlier //'/w/ws-building elsewhere). This was supplanted, evidently now in
view of the present passage, by a Carolingian aisled basilica with a trabeated colonnade,
atrium and gate tower (Krautheimer, Corpus 4.33-4). This church was destroyed by Robert
Guiscard, then rebuilt from 1099 and rededicated by Paschal II on 20 January 1116, LP
Duchesne II. 305 lines 34-5. A bull of 24 May 1116 refers to the church’s reduction in
size (Krautheimer, Corpus 4.3), though it had probably been intended to be as large as
Leo IV’s church. Hence the smaller present church with its double courtyard, the inner
one occupying the site of part of Leo IV’s building.

62 The translation here follows, as usual, Duchesne’s text, at this point in effect MS D
(Parisinus 5516, copied before mid-861). ‘With’ in D (if it is not just loose writing)
presumes that the five names following are not those of the Four Coronati; D then
continues with four other names (Severus to Victorinus) which it claims were the Four.
The older tradition, by which the Four Coronati were Pannonian sculptors, gave as their
names the first four on this list, and claimed that one Simplicius (the fifth on the list) was
martyred with them. A later tradition tried to make them into Romans and substitute the
next four names. This might suggest that the compiler of the LP followed the later
tradition. However, Duchesne’s apparatus records an important set of variants from MS

128

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Simplicius, also Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus the
4 Brethren, also Marius, Audifax and Abbacuc, Felicissimus and
Agapitus, Hippolytus with his 18 servants, Aquila and Prisca, 63 Arseus,
Aquinus, Narcissus and Marcellinus, Felix and Symmetrius, Candida and
Paulina, Anastasius and Felix, Apollio and Benedict, Venantius and
Felix, Diogenes and Liberalis, Festus and Marcellus, and Exsuperantius,
Pudentiana and Benedict, Felix and Venantus, 64 also the head 65 of St
Protus, of St Caecilia, 66 of St Alexander, of St Xystus, of St Sebastian 67
and of the holy virgin Praxedes - he placed them together and buried
them under the holy altar; and many others whose names are known to
God. 68 42. Over it also, to the Creator’s glory, [he provided] a fine
silver canopy of wondrous workmanship and wondrous size, overlaid

C (Parisinus 5140, 11th century) which would modify the translation as follows: ‘As for
their sacred bodies - scil. of Claudius, Nicostratus, Simphronianus and Castorius, and of
Simplicius, with Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus and Victorinus the 4 Brethren...’. The
effect of this is to follow the older tradition (even though the Roman names are still
described as those of Four Brethren). As Delehaye shows, this is greatly preferable on
historical grounds (and note that c. 57 below does presume that Claudius and Nicostratus
were among the four). It is at least possible that the text of MS C is, despite its later date,
original, and that the copyist of D attempted to show that the five Pannonian names were
not the IV Coronati, but then neglected to delete the Roman names. The origin of the four
Roman names is a group of martyrs at Albano on the Via Appia, culled on 8 August:
Secundus, Carpophorus, Victorinus and Severianus ( Depositio Martyrum in the
Chronographer of 354). See Delehaye, AaSS Nov. HI, especially p. 755.

63 It is noteworthy that these relics were not given to Prisca’s titulus. The only references
to this church in the LP (lives 97 and 98) are to gifts so small that it is likely that the
church was insignificant. Krautheimer, Corpus 3.75, suggests that the titulus had been
installed in some Roman structure, and that the large building which finally replaced it
and is the core of the present church dates only from c. 1100. It is not even certain that
this is on precisely the same site as the original titulus.

64 A second Venantius? The inscription (n. 68) here substitutes a second Benedict.

65 Heads? The inscription has the plural.

66 See 100 n. 65.

67 Vogel (Duchesne III) notes that this relic was found in 1624 under the high altar; since
then it has been kept in the church of SS IV Coronati. See 103 n. 14.

At SS Quattro Coronati there are still two inscriptions, once fixed to the altar but now
on the left-hand wall by the sacristy door, concerning the relics under the altar. The two
texts are best given in P. A. Galletti, Inscriptiones romance infimi aevi Romae exstantes
I, xxvi, and Delehaye, AaSS Nov. Ill 755-6. The right-hand text records Paschal IPs
renewal of the martyrs’ crypt in 1111; it states that in excavating the altar he discovered
two shells, one of porphyry, the other of proconnesian marble, containing relics; pace
Delehaye, there is no reason why an eye-witness should not have seen these shells, and
we need not suppose that they come from martyr acts. The left-hand text is probably of
about the same date. It gives a list of saints very like that in the LP; hence Erbes and
Duchesne thought it was copied from the LP. Delehaye thought that though the present
inscription is 12th-century, both it and the LP text could have been copied from an
original of Leo IV’s time; he noted that the inscription did not conflict with his view that
the reading of LP MS C is superior to that of MS D. See also Duchesne 1911:239, and
Delehaye 1936:64-73.

105. LEO IV

129

with gold colour, with jewels, prases and jacinths, weighing 31314 lb;
there too in this church he presented 4 red veils which hang round the
altar; and under that holy [altar?] 69 ... [the holy] prelate provided in the
oratory of the same St Barbara located in 70 the church of the SS
Quattuor Coronati a silver crown weighing 12 lb; in the same oratory
he presented 10 silver bowls weighing .. lb; in the same oratory he
provided 4 gold-interwoven cloths, with crosses and chevrons in the
middle; and 12 veils.

43. In St Stephen the pontiffs 71 basilica at the 3rd mile on the Via
Latina, this venerable pontiff provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth with a
cross in the middle; and 6 veils. There too he presented a holy paten
and chalice, small, of silver, weighing 1 'A lb.

In St Peter the prince of the apostles’ church the blessed prelate
presented a silver-gilt apostolated thurible, inscribed with the name of
lord pope Leo IV, weighing 4 lb. There too, in St Gregory the confessor
and pontiffs oratory he provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth, with silver-
worked chevrons and a cross. There too, in St Pastor the martyr’s
oratory, 72 he provided 1 cloth. In God’s holy mother’s oratory at the
ambo 73 he also provided 1 cloth. In the oratory of the Holy and Exalted
Cross he also provided I cloth. In the oratory at the font he also
provided 1 cloth and 10 veils of fourfold weave.

09 A lacuna in the text of MS D, as is clear from the anacoluthon and the need for a
reference to St Barbara’s oratory to precede the reference to the oratory of‘the same’ St
Barbara (this cannot refer back to c. 27, where St Barbara’s oratory is in a different
church). MSS CE attempt to mend the text, neither satisfactorily. The fault was due to
haplography between two occurrences of sanctissimo/us\ the adjective will the first time
surely have referred to the altar, beneath which was something, just as what was above
it has just been described. There might perhaps have been a reference to the reliquaries,
the two shells of porphyry and proconnesian, seen in 1111 (n. 68). Or there might merely
have been a reference to railings in the confessio.

70 So perhaps rather than ‘below’ (the same problem as at c. 27, n. 44), though the
oratory’s location is unknown; there is no later record of it (Hiilsen, Chiese , 205).

71 The church was really that of the deacon and protomartyr, not that of the pope who
died in 257; for its foundation by Demetrias see LP Leo I, 47:1 BP 37.

72 Just outside the transept at the end of the northern colonnade of the nave; the organ
would later be above it. The 8th-century writer who described St Peter’s ( Notitia
ecclesiarum 39, CChr 175.311 lines 189-90) still knew that St Pastor, the holy shepherd,
was St Peter himself: ‘then to an altar of the same holy apostle called by the name of the
shepherd, where they say a mansionarius who fell was saved from ruin by St Peter’ (this
alludes to a story in Gregory 1, Dial. 3.24). The LP’s reference to St Pastor as a martyr
may reflect a confusion common by this date. Even in the 6th century, the Leonine
Sacramentary has a St Pastor on 25 December (so too Mart. Hieron.)\ and cf. LP 11.1 BP
5 where the 2nd-century pope Pius is said to be brother of Pastor (a confusion with the
title of the work written by Pius’s brother Hermas).

73 This is Gregory Ill’s oratory, just outside the transept at the end of the southern
colonnade of the nave, opposite the last-mentioned oratory; cf. 92:6.

130

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

44. In the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati, over the high altar,
this venerable and distinguished pontiff provided 1 gold-interwoven
cloth with a cross in the middle and chevrons and gold-interwoven
edging round it. There too in St Barbara’s oratory he provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth; in St Xystus’s oratory he provided 1 cloth; in St
Nicholas’s oratory he provided 1 cloth, with eagles on it. In this church
he also provided 1 linen curtain with crosses in the middle and gold-
interwoven edging round it, of wondrous size. This pope, adorned with
godly character and holy works, presented in the oft-mentioned hall,
which relying on love he had founded, a fine silver paten overlaid with
gold colour, with the trophy of the Cross and the effigy of the Saviour,
of God’s holy mother and of the holy apostles, adorned to a beautiful
pattern, weighing 7 lb; also a holy chalice swathed in gold, with images
of the evangelists and a cross, weighing 4 lb. 45. Also a fine silver-gilt
chandelier on which is seen the sign of the cross incised in a circle, with
effigies of the prophets and an image of St Stephen the first martyr; also
1 fine silver apostolic 74 thurible; 4 gilded bowls for the splendour of this
venerable basilica, weighing 2'/ 2 lb. When all this was done, he adorned
the confessio with the sacred altar with silver panels weighing 93 lb,
and decorated them with effigies of the saints, on top of which he also
presented a fine silver diadem with precious jewels and with a cross in
the middle, which even now can be seen hanging over that altar; there
too he presented 42 gold-interwoven veils and 13 brass chandeliers.

46. Inflamed with love from on high, this same pontiff presented in
the monastery 75 of SS Silvester, Benedict and Scholastica, called

74 For the hanging of an ‘apostolic’ thurible in the shaft down to St Peter’s grave see
100:6 with n. 16. Presumably at SS IV Coronati the thurible was suspended into the relic
chamber. It may have acquired its name from its being incised with an effigy of the
apostles, or by analogy with the censers used at the tombs of the apostles.

75 This is the earliest certainly authentic literary reference to St Scholastica’s monastery
at Subiaco. A villa is said to have been built by Nero (a sarcophagus and capitals from
it are in the monastery) on the banks of three artificial lakes (the biggest gave way in
1305 and flooded Subiaco). The site is regarded as the cradle of the Benedictine order,
where Benedict was a hermit before he made for Montecassino. It is sometimes stated that
the monastery was destroyed by the Lombards under Agilulf in 601 and that the monks
fled to Rome, to the monastery of St Erasmus on the Caelian; but this is legend, first
appearing in the 17th-century Chronicon Sublacense (Muratori, R It SS. 24.929-930);
there was no connexion between Subiaco and St Erasmus’s before 938, when Leo VII
granted St Erasmus’s to the abbot of Subiaco (J3608, Ferrari, 123-4). It was restored,
supposedly after 104 years, and again destroyed, this time by the Saracens, in 846; this,
if little earlier, may be historical, since Leo VII in a charter of 11 July 936 making
Subiaco immediately subject to the pope, following its enrichment by himself and by
Alberic, remarked that the Saracens destroyed the monastery’s ancient cloisters (J3597).
The whole early history of Subiaco is vitiated by spurious documents and privileges: e.g.
one of Gregory I appeared in time to support a privilege granted in 997, and one of pope

105. LEO IV

131

Subiaco, 3 gold-interwoven cloths and also 7 gold-interwoven veils.

In St Peter the apostle’s church after the Saracens’ looting this
blessed prelate provided a crucifix constructed of wondrous size, with
jacinth jewels, of fine silver-gilt, weighing 77 lb, and 1 other large
pearl.

47. These things, then, amongst others, were wondrously done and
achieved in the current 12th indiction [848-9] with the Lord’s help
through the assiduous prayers and tears of the holy prelate, and it is not
superfluous if we endeavour to include them clearer than light in this
work, for the sake of his eternal memory, so that men of the present and
of time to come may more readily acknowledge how great was this
man’s sanctity amidst this dismal life. Then 76 after the wicked, 77
lamentable and utterly wretched looting that the Saracens accomplished
with the devil’s encouragement on the first head of all the churches, that
is, the holy Roman church, those sons of Satan again meant to inflict
similar loss as before on Roman territory and on St Peter the apostle’s
church and then head back victorious to the places whence they had
come. But the supreme shepherd’s care and endeavour shone forth and

Zacharias was available for inspection during a legal dispute in April 983 (Kehr
1907:11.90, n. 22), when another privilege, just possibly a genuine one of Gregory IV, was
also cited. Leo IV is supposed to have visited Subiaco c. 853, to have dedicated in the
cave two altars, one in honour of SS Benedict and Scholastica, one in honour of pope
Silvester, to have presented one silver bowl and two gold-interwoven curtains of the kind
called Jresatae , and to have confirmed there all these enrichments ( Chron . Sublac.,
Muratori, loc. c/7.). St Silvester is supposed to have been the original title of the
monastery, with the names of Benedict and Scholastica added later, and that of Silvester
subsequently dropped. When the cave began to attract hermits a separate monastery sprang
up here, as St Benedict’s, c. 1200, and from c. 1400 the old abbey is called St
Scholastica’s simply. Excavations in 1962 below the present church revealed an oratory,
15 m x 4 m, supposed to be 6th-century and to be Benedict’s church to Silvester; and
close to it a much larger 9th-century church (whose narthex is thought to survive as the
lower part of the bell-tower); both sites are within a third, Romanesque, church. A 12th-
(or ? 16th-) century inscription records Benedict VII’s consecration of this church on ‘4
December’ in a year which may be 979. It was in turn replaced by the present (1769)
building; St Scholastica’s Abbey (tourist guide), ed. Lozzi, Rome, 1971; Egidi 1904. See
c. 65 for another church at Subiaco.

76 This Saracen incursion is recorded nowhere else. Note that near the end of the story
(c. 54) the writer speaks in a way which really suits the pope himself: ‘we ordered that
some should live... our hope - we have it in God... in case they might live among us....
we ordered that... at the wall which we were beginning’; possibly the author was using
a papal letter dealing with a rout of the Saracens. In a fragment of a letter of Leo IV to
Louis II (J2620, MGH Ep 5.585 no. 1) it is said that when news came that the Saracens
were about to land secretly at Porto Leo gathered his forces, decided to head with them
for the coast, and left Rome. But the text calls Louis emperor and can therefore be no
earlier than 850; the MGH editor, A. de Hirsch-Gereuth, dates it September 852. It must
refer to an occasion later than the present.

77 Duchesne compares these expressions with those in the prose inscription from one of
the gates of the Leonine City (the last quoted in n. 108).

132

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

was vigilant, and they were totally unable to achieve it. 48. But so that
those faithful to the Lord might rightly be yet more faithful and not
doubt that his signs and wonders from of old freshly spring forth, there
must now be an abridgment from the beginning of what God’s mercy
venerably achieved for them at that time, and in what great
wretchedness and disasters that plague-bearing race were justly crushed
and dissolved. So, remembering their former profit and the plunder they
had had, they cruelly decided to come again to storm the city of Rome
during the 12th indiction with a teeming band of perverse men and with
many ships. For many days they lingered at a place called Totarum 78
close to the island of Sardinia. Leaving thence, they essayed to depart
to the Port of Rome, with no help from God. 49. Their hostile and
wicked arrival frightened the Romans in no small way. But because
almighty God has always kept his church inviolate and afterwards does
not stop doing so, he then stirred up the hearts of all the men of Naples,
Amalfi 79 and Gaeta amongst others, that they too, along with the
Romans, had to rise up and contend mightily against them: then they
left their own localities, came with their ships ahead of the unwanted 80
Saracens, suddenly informed the blessed pontiff Leo IV of their arrival,
and professed that they had come for no other reason than to win a
victory with the Lord’s help over the pagans.

50. Then the venerable pontiff bade some of them come on ahead to
him in Rome, as he particularly wanted to know from them whether
their arrival was peaceful or not; and so it happened. Among them then
was one who had been appointed over the army, Caesarius by name, the
son of Sergius master of the soldiers. 81 Giving them a kind reception at
the Lateran palace, he inquired the motive for their arrival. They swore
they had come for no other purpose than that which can be read set
down above. The godly Apostolicus believed their account, then made
his way to the city of Ostia with a great retinue of armed men, and
welcomed all the Neapolitans with grand and notable devotion. 51.
When they saw the supreme pontiff they prostrated themselves on the
ground at his feet, kissed them reverently, and gave thanks to the

78 Unknown; probably one of the small islands on the east coast of Sardinia.

79 Meiggs 1960:103: ‘Ostia may also [sc. as it did to Florence, and later to Orvieto and
renaissance Rome] have provided material for the cathedral of Amalfi, for the Amalfi fleet
helped to defeat the Saracens near the Tiber mouth, and an Ostian inscription can still be
seen in the font of a near-by church’ (CIL 14.430).

8(1 inutiles seems to apply to the enemy, and not to be a carping remark against the
Roman allies.

81 Sergius was Duke of Naples. His son Caesarius had already been involved in earlier
struggles against the Saracens: see 104 n. 92.

105. LEO IV

133

Almighty throned on high, who had decided to send such a bishop to
strengthen them. That they might better be the victors over the sons of
Belial 82 , they begged him earnestly that they might deserve to receive
the Lord’s body from his sacred hands. With his own lips he chanted
mass for them in St Aurea’s church, 83 and from his hands, as has been
said, they all took communion. Before this happened, with Christ’s help
he made his way to that church with the Neapolitans, accompanied by
hymns, litanies and distinguished chants. In it he knelt and besought the
Highest that by his prayers he might see fit to hand over the enemies of
Christians into the hands of the defenders. His prayer was: 84 ‘O God,
whose right hand raised up St Peter the apostle lest he sink when
walking on the water, and delivered from the depths of the sea his
fellow-apostle Paul when three times shipwrecked, graciously hear us
and grant that, by the merits of them both, the limbs of these thy
faithful, contending against the enemies of thy holy church, may be
fortified by thy almighty right hand and gain strength; that by their
gaining triumph thy holy name may be seen glorious among all races;
through [our Lord Jesus Christ]’.

52. Next day, after the venerable prelate had returned from that city,
those allies of and consorters with evil men appeared with many ships
close to the seashore of Ostia. The Neapolitans launched an attack on
them, meaning to contend mightily, and even wounded some of them -
and they would have been triumphant, had it not been for one hindrance
that speedily occurred. This was, that while they were contending
earnestly with each other a very mighty and overpowering wind was
suddenly stirred up, such as no one in these times can remember, and
it immediately scattered both fleets, but that of the Saracens more so.
So they came to the seashore; then, with the wind blowing and the sea
billowing in the storms, they were scattered, and after a time they
retreated with their strength broken. Almighty God, as we truly believe,
had ‘brought forth this wind from his storehouse’, 85 and it would not let

82 1 Sam. 1.16, 2.12, 2 Sam. 16.7, 1 Kings 21.10, 2 Cor. 6.15.

83 Mentioned at 98:50, and in the late 7th century as repaired by Sergius I (LP 86:13 BP
86, cf. BP xxxv), St Aurea’s was in the ancient cemetery of Ostia, but within the 9th-
century fortifications of Gregoriopolis, and at some point it became the cathedral,
presumably replacing the still undiscovered Constantinian basilica. The present building
is late 15th-century. Cf. Broccoli 1982.

84 As far as ‘of them both’ this prayer is the collect for the Octave of the Apostles (6
July) in the Gelasian Sacramentary (ed. L. C. Mohlberg et al., 1960, formula V946),
Gregorian Sacramentary (ed. H. A. Wilson, 1915, 89), Triplex Sacramentary (formula
2117), etc. The original concludes: ‘we may gain the glory of eternal life’.

85 Psalm 134 (135) 7.

134

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

them sally forth to cause harm. 53. For these new and mystical
wonders which in our times our true God has seen fit to display and
manifest for us, though we deserve it not, his clemency is to be
glorified and praised for ever, in that he let them behold the place they
desired and yet the force of his power drove them far away to prevent
their capturing it, and later, through the intercession and merits of SS
Peter and Paul princes of the apostles, many of them were all the while
extinguished not only by the depth of the sea but by hunger and the
sword. Many of them were killed by our men while they endured
hunger and want on certain of our islands, while others were taken alive
and, to witness to the truth of the event, brought living to Rome. 54.
In case their number might appear too large, the Roman dignitaries
ordered that many be hanged on trees near our Port of Rome. We
ordered that some should live, bound in iron, but for one reason only,
so that they could know clearer than light both our hope, which we have
in God, and his ineffable piety, and also their own tyranny. After this,
to stop them living among us idly or without distress, we were bidding
them carry out everything, sometimes at the wall which we were
beginning round St Peter the apostle’s church, 86 sometimes at various
manufacturers’ tasks, whatever seemed necessary. 55. These, then, as
has now been told, were the advantages for which we kept them.

In St Peter the prince of the apostles’ basilica after the looting by the
savage race of the Agareni, he presented 13 fine silver arches; two of
these, which he placed on the right and left side in the presbyterium , are
of wondrous size, weighing .. lb. In St Peter the apostle’s church this
blessed prelate provided 1 gold-worked cloth, representing how St Peter
preached to the holy Roman church, with 6 white jewels, i. e. pearls,
and with 11 prases and 27 jacinths. In St Andrew the apostle’s church
he provided a marble canopy over the altar, also a silver chalice with 12
crowns hanging on that canopy, weighing .. lb. There too he built a
bell-tower and installed a bell with a bronze clapper and a gilded cross.
Also in St Peter the apostle’s church he presented a fine gold thurible
decorated with various jewels.

56. In God’s mother the ever-virgin our lady St Mary’s church at St
Laurence’s outside the wall he provided 1 cloth representing our Lord
Jesus Christ’s resurrection and with an image of this bountiful prelate.
In the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati he provided 11 silver
canisters weighing 23 lb. In St Stephen the first martyr’s church 87 he

86 Cf. cc. 68ff

87 Presumably S. Stefano Rotondo on the Caelian, not the basilica on the Via Latina.

105. LEO IV

135

presented a gold-worked cloth with 4 jacinth jewels.

In St Peter the apostle’s church he presented a fine gold cross with
various jewels, jacinths, pearls and emeralds, decorated on a wondrous
scale, which stands on the right side close to the high altar; therein too
he freshly renewed and silvered the rod on which this cross is held, the
silver weighing 11 Vi lb, with an inscription of the name of lord pope
Leo IV.

57. In Christ’s martyr St Laurence’s church outside the city of
Rome’s wall this bountiful and supreme prelate, led by his exceeding
love and influenced by his good character, provided a fine silk cloth
with eagles and with 4 gold-worked panels on each side, with a
depiction of this martyr’s martyrdom and the image of this prelate.

In the church of the martyrs SS Quattuor Coronati he provided 3
silver-gilt images, one with the Saviour’s face, the other 2 with the
faces of SS Claudius and Nicostratus, weighing 5214 lb. In the same
church he presented 1 silver crown weighing 25 lb; on this church’s
pergola in front of the high altar he suspended a silver lily with crystal
melons and a buttercup. There too he provided 7 silver canisters
weighing 12 lb.

58. At his own mansion, 88 whose building from the ground up he had
designed and which accrued to him from his parents’ ownership, he
provided a monastery for God’s handmaids in honour of SS Symmetrius
and Caesarius; and there he bestowed gifts, a silver-gilt holy paten and
chalice with various jewels, weighing .. lb. There too he presented 1
censer with an incense-boat, weighing .. lb. In the same monastery this
bountiful pontiff presented 3 fine silver canisters and 1 Saxon bowl,
weighing in all 1214 lb. There too, for his soul’s reward and
recompense, he provided 3 gold-interwoven cloths, one of them with an
inlaid needlework panel. There too he provided a fine gold diadem with
jewels, prases and jacinths, which hang over the altar, weighing .. lb.

59. In God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady’s basilica
outside this city of Rome’s walls close to St Laurence’s this God-
protected and venerable pontiff, burning with love from on high,

88 This is the monastery de Corsas mentioned as Corsarum in cc. 25, 28. The LP takes
up again the account of this restoration before listing the pope’s gifts. There were
originally two separate monasteries (c. 25; and 98:79-80 with nn. 158-159), thatde Corsas
with its oratory of St Caesarius, and that of St Symmetrius. Comparing this passage with
cc. 25, 28, we see that Leo IV united the two and installed nuns: a single community may
have occupied a split site. The reference to his parents’ mansion may apply strictly to St
Symmetrius’s only; so Duchesne, and Ferrari, 98, concurs (citing other opinions). Zucchi
1938:297-302 locates the monastery de Corsas across the Via Appia from S. Sisto
Vecchio; the exact site of St Symmetrius’s is not known.

136

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth, with a gilt panel in the middle with
an effigy of our Lord Jesus Christ’s nativity and of this bountiful
pontiff. In St Laurence the martyr’s church outside the walls he
presented a silver-gilt thurible with its cover, with chains and pommels
round it, weighing 6 lb.

60 . In God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady’s church in
Trastevere the apse through its great age was on the point of collapse; 89
this prelate then restored it.

In St Peter the prince of the apostles’ church, for that church’s
honour and status, he provided a fine silver cluster which hangs in the
presbyterium in front of the high altar, weighing 138 lb.

In St Sebastian the martyr’s church at Frascati he provided a fine
silver canister with six lights, weighing 2 lb, with an inscription of the
bountiful prelate’s name and that of St Sebastian.

61 . These things then were fittingly carried out and completed after
the Saracens’ doleful and wicked looting, and the catholic and totally
praiseworthy prelate, for the splendour and praise of the church of Peter
the apostle and prince of the apostles, provided a canopy of wondrous
size and beauty over its venerable altar, and presented fine-silver gilt
columns and lilies, weighing 1606 lb. For this canopy he presented 4
crowns with 16 chalices, of fine gold weighing .. lb, and of silver as
above. For the honour and glory of this canopy he provided 46 chalices
and crowns, weighing 22 lb 7 oz. Over this canopy’s columns to add to
their beauty he provided 4 fine silver baskets weighing 42 lb. There too,
in front of the altar’s circuit, he provided 12 white all-silk medallioned
veils with gold-interwoven edging. Therein he presented 14 other linen
veils with edging around of white medallioned silk. There too he
provided 2 fine silver arches weighing 50 lb.

62 . In St Silvester’s oratory within the Lateran palace he provided 1
gold-interwoven cloth, with a small gold-studded panel in the middle,
and 4 gold-interwoven veils. In the Jerusalem church 90 he provided 1
gold-interwoven cloth and also 4 gold-interwoven veils. In St Mary the
virgin’s venerable deaconry called Aquiro he provided a silver diadem,
encircled inside with gold pommels.

In God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady’s church 91 at
Frascati he presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth, with a small gilt inlaid
panel in the middle, and 4 gold-interwoven veils. In God’s mother

89 It had been damaged, perhaps, by Gregory IV’s remodelling of its interior, 103:31-2;
but the next pope had to rebuild it entirely, 106:30.

90 Sta Croce in Gerusalemme; so too, as ‘the Sessorian’, in c. 64.

91 Vanished, and unbeatable.

105. LEO IV

137

Mary’s church at Moreno, called Narrano, 92 he provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth and also 4 gold-interwoven veils. In St Peter the
apostle’s church at Marulis 93 he also offered 1 gold-interwoven cloth,
with a small gilt inlaid panel in the middle, and 4 gold-interwoven veils.

63 . In God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady’s basilica at St
Laurence’s outside the wall, this God-protected and venerable pontiff
provided 1 linen curtain with gold-interwoven edging round it and also
gold-interwoven crosses in the middle.

In SS Cosmas and Damian’s church 94 at Silva Candida he presented
1 red cloth with silver edging round it and crosses in the middle, and 4
veils with eagles.

64 . In St Peter the prince of the apostles’ church he presented a silver
crown encircled with representations outside and gilded, weighing 7 lb.
In St Peter the apostle’s basilica in front of the confessio of the sacred
altar to right and left, this God-protected and blessed pope, relying on
love from on high, presented for this basilica’s beauty 6 fine silver
angels weighing 64 lb.

In 95 the Sessorian he provided a canopy of olive 96 which hangs 97
round the altar, with 4 panels, gilded; also 4 chevrons. There too he
provided 4 fine silver arches weighing 100 lb, which stand in the
presbyterium.

65 . In SS Cosmas and Damian’s church 98 at the place called Subiaco 99
at about the 40th mile from Rome this blessed pontiff presented 1 gold-
interwoven cloth and also 3 gold-interwoven veils.

In the church of Christ’s martyr St Gervasius and Protasius in the city

92 Cf. 104:27 with n. 52. The place would be about the 10th mile on the Via Latina. A
corte de Moreni is mentioned here in a diploma of Agapitus II in 955 (Marini, Papiri ,
40). The church seems to have acquired the name St Marina’s: in 1116a bull of Paschal
II mentions it as such at a farm Morene (Duchesne 1.193 n. 54).

95 Cf. 97:76 with n. 158.

94 See c. 29.

95 The reference to the Sessorian in Duchesne’s text depends on MS D alone; MSS CE
corrupt it out of existence into superscript.

96 Apparently a canopy made of olive-wood, rather than of olive colour; cf. c. 96.

97 The Latin verb is plural.

98 For ‘church’, MSS CE have ‘monastery’.

99 The Chronicon Sublacense (Muratori, R. It. SS. 24.929; cf. n. 75) distinguishes this
church from that of SS Benedict & Scholastica: ‘The second abbot after St Benedict was
his disciple Honoratus... At that time there had been constructed for the meeting of the
community a church in honour of SS Cosmas & Damian; but later a bigger church was
constructed and enlarged in honour of St Benedict and of the virgin St Scholastica.’ In
any case this passage of the LP should be seen in conjunction with Leo IV’s other
involvement at Subiaco, c. 46.

138

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

called Fondi 100 this prelate provided 1 go Id-interwoven cloth with a
gold-worked cross in the middle, and 1 gold-interwoven veil. In Christ’s
martyr St Caesarius’s church 101 in the city called Terracina the same
prelate presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth with a cross in the middle and
chevrons and a purple fringe inscribed with the name of lord pope Leo
IV, and also 5 gold-interwoven veils.

In St Peter the apostle’s basilica he presented 4 fine silver arches
weighing 74 lb.

66. In St Rufina the martyr’s basilica at Silva Candida he provided
a gold-interwoven cloth with a cross in the middle, with a fringe and
purple all round, with an inscription of the name of lord pope Leo IV.

In St Clement the martyr and pontiffs church this blessed and
clement prelate provided 6 fine silver bowls, three [of them] uniform in
design, adorned with crosses, two with the likeness of palms, and one
chased, or Saxon, weighing in all 4 lb.

In St Peter the apostle’s church this blessed and distinguished pontiff
provided 3 fine silver arches with columns and lilies, weighing in all
102 lb.

In St Caesarius’s basilica at Terracina this venerable pontiff provided
a cloth decorated with fourfold weave and with purple around it, with
a gold-studded cross in the middle, with an inscription of the name of
lord pope Leo IV.

In St Peter the apostle’s basilica he provided 3 fine silver arches, with

11X1 This was the basilica founded about 403 by St Paulinus of Nola on the site of a small
and ruinous church (which Lanzoni, 162, suggests was of early 4th-century date and was
the earliest church at Fondi). Paulinus endowed it with relics of SS Gervasius and
Protasius, Nazarius and the apostles Andrew and Luke, as his verses state ( Ep . 32.17,
CSEL 19.291). Now known as S. Maria, it is the cathedral of Fondi.

101 The present cathedral of Terracina. This passage is the earliest mention of it (Kehr,
1907:11.117), but the bishopric existed as early as 313, while there is a Christian
inscription from the city dated to 345 (CIL 10 i.6419-21; 10.ii.8412-13). The Hieronymian
Martyrology has Caesarius as a martyr at Terracina on 1 November (and on 21 April, but
this may be a dedication to him at Rome). A 5th- or 6th-century Passion (BHL 1511-16)
has Caesarius as a deacon of African origin, martyred under Nero with the priests Julian
and Felix and a monk Eusebius, at Terracina on 1 November, after the martyrdom of the
virgins Theodora and Euphrasyna. The story was compiled, perhaps by an African
refugee, using names all occurring in the Hieronymian early in November and St John
Chrysostom’s story of the martyr Julian of Anazarbus (BHG 1 967; PG 50.665-676). But
the Passion does say that Caesarius was buried on the Via Appia (just before reaching
Terracina when coming from Rome), and it was the basilica built on this site (probably
long before the 9th century) which became the cathedral. A second cathedral, of St
Silvanus, was located at the foot of Mte Leano on the left of the Via Appia when coming
from Rome, a mile from Terracina; there is a ruined church there, on the site of a temple.
The Hieronymian (10 February) has a confessor named Silvanus at Terracina (Lanzoni,
147-155).

105. LEO IV

139

columns and lilies, weighing 60 lb. 102

67, In God’s mother St Mary’s church 103 in the city of Porto he
provided 1 cloth of Spanish, decorated around with gold-interweave, and
a silver cross in the middle; also 3 veils of Spanish, decorated around
with gold-interweave.

In St Peter the apostle’s church after the Saracens’ looting this God-
protected pontiff provided fine silver railings weighing 800 lb, which
are in front of his confessio; and 4 silver-gilt panels which are on the
steps in front of St Peter the apostle’s confessio, and 2 lambs, which
weigh altogether 44 lb. There too he presented crowns in porphyry of
wondrous size, decorated in fine gold with 12 dolphins, with an
inscription of the name of this bountiful prelate, the actual gold
weighing 3*/2 lb; also 10 fine silver arches which altogether weigh 181
lb; and 48 linen veils which hang in the arches there, decorated around
with gold-interweave.

68. After all that has been written above it is pleasing now to tell and
unravel for an everlasting record in this present account the nature and
extent of what the greatest and venerable prelate, spurred on as he was
with God’s zeal, with skilful and godly endeavour honourably and nobly
dedicated 104 for the defence of the whole of mother church in but a short
space of time. Thus it was that while all the nobility of the Romans
were lamenting exceedingly over what the wicked and malevolent
Saracens had just recently inflicted in their looting, for fear they might
subsequently cause worse damage if St Peter the apostle’s church were
not speedily fortified with walls on all sides, this lovable pontiff began
to have great distress for all the Romans, and anxiously to think
precisely how he could remove so much sickness and fear from their
hearts. 69. And when he was frequently slaving at these daily labours,
by God’s revelation he straightway adopted a plan of this kind: 105 to

102 The repeated gifts of silver arches to St Peter’s (three times in two chapters) show the
undigested state of the vestiarium registers when they were used by our compiler. They
need not be variant records of the same gift.

103 Mentioned in the same charter of 1018 that mentions St Nympha’s at Porto, c. 29.

104 This word will have seemed appropriate because the Leonine City was dedicated on
its completion (c. 73). On the city see S. Gibson and B. Ward-Perkins 1979, 1983.

105 This is disingenuous. The idea, indeed the order, came from Lothar before the end of
846 while Sergius was still alive, though it could just be that Sergius’s death delayed the
matter and Leo had to intervene to get it restarted. For the date of Lothar’s capitulary see
104 n. 90, where c. 2 is quoted; at a later point the text has (MGH Cap 2.66.30-67.2): ‘7.
Because for our sins and offences St Peter’s church has this year been laid waste and
despoiled, with every desire and the greatest urgency we wish to achieve a way by which
the church may be restored to prevent the pagans having access to it in future. So we
decree and order this to the Apostolicus by our letters and envoys, that a very strong wall

140

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

elucidate this particular matter very clearly to his beloved spiritual son
lord Lothar Augustus and, in this way, through his help and counsel and
with the Lord willing it, [to complete] that city which his predecessor
pope Leo III had begun to build over against the said apostle’s church
(in many places he had laid the foundations, but after his passing some
men had removed them so that where this wall had previously merited
its beginning not even an opening could be seen); this was the work he
desired, and, if life should be his companion, with Christ comforting
him, he would be willing to bring it to completion. Then the godly and
serene Caesar heard about it, and he was straightaway filled with great
gladness and rejoicing; he eagerly begged this prelate, who was in every
way his spiritual father, to complete the building of so great a work as
fast as possible with earnest effort. He and his brothers sent many
pounds of silver for it, so that, as has been said, so advantageous a work
should in no way remain undelivered. 70. On receiving the very
message he hoped for, the distinguished prelate became extremely
cheerful.

From then on he began to be mightily anxious about this business.
Summoning all the faithful of God’s holy church, he personally asked
them for advice on how he could finish such a great construction of
walls quickly; then they all decided that he should get men in general
to turn up in shifts from the individual cities and all the estates, whether
public or belonging to monasteries; and so it was done. 106 So in the

be built round St Peter’s church. But we wish money for this work to be contributed from
our whole kingdom, so that so great a work, pertaining to the glory of all, may be
completed with the help of all. 8. The bishops will have to be admonished through the
whole of lord emperor Lothar’s kingdom to preach in their churches and cities, to
persuade those who have no benefices yet have possessions and money, by exhorting and
urging that, just as those who possess benefices are going to do, so they too should
contribute from their money, for the making of a wall round St Peter the apostle’s church
at Rome, since it is particularly fitting for children to honour their mother and, as far as
they can, guard and defend her.’ AB 851 Nelson 73 ignores Lothar and gives Leo all the
credit: ‘The Saracens held Benevento and other civitaies... undisturbed... Leo, fearing an
attack of the Saracens, fortified the church of St Peter all around with a wall and
continued this wall right up to the city, thus linking the church to the city of Rome.’

106 The LP explains that the workforce was was conscripted: cities, public estates
(massae ), and monasteries all supply contingents. The public estates seem to be both the
papal domuscultae (cf. LECP 31 -34), and former imperial Byzantine lands in the Roman
duchy, which may by now have been indistinguishable from domuscultae . The
farmworkers were die familia of St Peter, organized into military units, and administered
by their own officials, not under the jurisdiction of neighbouring cities. The monasteries
mentioned are those whose property was otherwise juridically exempt; they are probably
the three named in the Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma , MGH SS 3.720,
as ‘fiscal patrimonies in Roman territory for imperial use’: St Saviour’s (Rieti), St Mary’s
(Farfa), and St Andrew’s near Mount Soracte. Two inscriptions survive to show that
different sections of the work were assigned to gangs from particular places (both now

105. LEO IV

141

second year of his prelacy this city began to be built; and in the sixth
year of his consecration, with all its great and wonderful constructions
the whole city was finished on every side. 107 And since by the blessed
prelate’s many labours and struggles all the work on the walls had been
completed and delivered as he desired, he began to give manifold and
uncounted thanks to almighty God who saw fit to hear and fulfil his
daily prayers for the new building of the walls. 71. No man’s tongue
could briefly tell the extent and nature of the care, endeavour and
anxiety that the dutiful and praiseworthy shepherd had every day and
night while the construction was proceeding. And because he was doing
nothing else after the necessary duties of the sacred commandments
except what is set down above, truly neither cold nor blasts of wind nor
rain nor any disturbance of the air, great or small, could slow his day-
to-day movement in any way; but now here, now there, watchful and
anxious, he bustled about the various constructions of the walls, so that
our almighty Redeemer might through the godly intercession of the
apostles Peter and Paul decree the speediest fulfilment of his good plan
and desire. And now we can all see it.

72. Then at last, with all the works of the new city finished and
completed as we have frequently related, the blessed pope, who is
through and in all things praiseworthy, in order that this city (which is
called Leonine from its founder’s own name) might stand strong and
firm for ever, ordered with the devotion of a great spirit and in joy of
heart that all the bishops, sacerdotes , deacons and all the orders of the
clergy of the holy catholic and apostolic Roman church, should, after
litanies and the chanting of the psalter, with hymns and spiritual chants,
go with him round the whole circuit of the walls, barefoot and with ash
on their heads. 108 Among other things he enjoined that the cardinal

mounted on the arch through which the Via di Porta Angelica passes; Duchesne 1.518 n.
52, III. 106). One states that a tower and stretch of wall (pagina) were built by the militia
Capracorum (a domusculta) under the supervision of one Agatho in Leo IV’s time; the
other attributes a stretch and two towers to the militia Saltisine , an estate or another
domusculta , otherwise unknown.

107 The work began in 848 and finished in 852. It must have been well advanced by 850,
as the three inscriptions (next note) mention only Lothar as emperor.

108 The dedication procession stopped at each of the new city’s three gates, the Porta S.
Peregrini (Porta Viridaria), the Posterula Castelli (the postern near Castel S. Angelo), and
finally at the postern facing the Saxon quarter. The first two of these opened onto the
Campus Neronis; one linked this with St Peter’s, the other linked it with Rome by way
of the Porta S. Petri and Ponte S. Angelo. The third opened onto the road linking the
Vatican with Trastevere, the present Lungotevere Gianicolense and Via Lungara.
Inscriptions on the gates survived long enough to be copied: texts in Duchesne, or De
Rossi ( lnscr. christ. , 2.324-6, 347; the first two, in elegiacs, also in DUmmler, MGHPoet.
Lat. aevi Kar. 2.663 nos. 8-9): ‘Traveller who come and go, notice this beauty that Leo

142

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

bishops 109 should bless water, so that during the offices of the prayers
they might be zealous in casting that water in every direction to hallow
the wall as they crossed it. 73. They humbly fulfilled what he had
ordered. The venerable pontiff himself pronounced three prayers over
this wall, with much weeping and sighing, asking and beseeching that
this city might both be preserved for ever by Christ’s aid and endure
safe and unshaken from every incursion of its enemies by the
guardianship of all the saints and angels. The first prayer, over the gate
which looks towards St Peregrinus, begins and ends as follows: 110 ‘O
God, who didst confer on thy apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom of
heaven and didst grant him the pontificate of binding and loosing, grant
that by the help of his intercession we may be delivered from the bonds
of our sins; and cause that this city which we have newly founded with
thy assistance may ever remain safe from thy wrath and have new and
manifold triumphs over the enemy on whose account it has been
constructed; through [our Lord Jesus Christ].’ This dutiful pope gave out
the second prayer over the postern 111 where in wondrous fashion it
overlooks the Castle called S. Angelo. Here is its text: ‘O God who
from the very beginning of this world hast vouchsafed to guard and

IV has now willingly built. These fair summits shine with shaped marble, made by men’s
hands and pleasing for their beauty. This triumphant prelate carried out this great work
that you see in the time of unconquered Caesar Lothar. I believe that the wars of evil-
minded men will never harm you, nor will your enemies triumph further. Rome, head of
the world, splendour, hope, golden Rome, o nurse, behold how your prelate’s effort is on
display! This City is called Leonine from its founder’s name.’ ‘Sing worthy songs,
Roman, Frank and Lombard traveller, and all who notice this new work that good bishop
Leo IV has rightly done for the salvation, lo, of his fatherland and people. Rejoicing and
triumphing for years with the high prince, he completed that whose high honour is
resplendent. May almighty God bear to heaven’s citadel those whom venerable faith has
overcome with such great love. It is called the Leonine City.’ ‘When the evil-minded race
of Saracens again wished to stir up wars and cause depredations as before, God allowed
a storm at sea to overwhelm some of them, while Roman soldiers took others alive and,
to gain praise and everlasting memory, compelled many bound in iron to carry out various
tasks in this so honourable work. Thus has the Lord performed this new wonder in the
time of holy pope Leo IV and unconquered lord emperor Lothar ever Augustus.’

109 The seven suburbicarian bishops, in practice the pope’s assistants at Rome; cf. Kuttner
1945. Their sees were Ostia, Porto, Silva Candida (SS Rufina & Secunda), Albano,
Labicum (later at Tusculum, then at Frascati), Palestrina, and Sabina (at Vescovio, the
ancient Forum Novum, ultimately at Magliano).

110 The original of this prayer (as far as ‘bonds of our sins’) was the collect on 29 June
for St Peter alone in the Gelasian Sacramentary (formula V918) and for vespers that day
in the Gregorian Sacramentary (88); Triplex Sacramentary formulas 540, 2087.

111 See 97 n. 129 for Hadrian’s mausoleum still being called Hadrianium in the eighth
century. Ado’s Martyrology claims that a church of St Michael was dedicated on top of
the rotunda by a pope Boniface, generally taken to be Boniface IV; but there is no secure
evidence for its origin. Liutprand of Cremona, 3.12, refers to such a church, HUlsen,
Chiese, 196, Armellini-Cecchelli, Chiese , 956-7.

105. LEO IV

143

preserve this holy catholic and apostolic Roman church from enemies,
forgive and cleanse the bond 112 of our iniquity, and permit this city,
which we have newly dedicated in thy holy name by the intercession of
thy apostles Peter and Paul, to remain ever safe and unshaken from all
the snares of its enemies; through [our Lord Jesus Christ].’ He chanted
the third prayer over the other postern, which looks towards the Schola
Saxonum and is, from their name, called the Postern of the Saxons. This
prayer has this particularized 113 text: 114 ‘Grant, we beseech thee,
almighty and merciful God, that we who cry to thee with all our hearts
may, by the intercession of St Peter thy apostle, gain forgiveness from
thy piety; and for this city which I thy servant bishop Leo IV have by
thy assistance dedicated with new work and which from my name is
called Leonine, grant it continually to call on the clemency of thy
majesty so that it may remain ever unharmed and secure; through [our
Lord Jesus Christ].’

74. In this same city and on the day of the supreme solemnity, to
fulfil his desire and the promise he had vowed to God, he distributed a
great dispensation of money both to the Romans and to the various
races, then with the rest, as has been said, of the sacerdotes and all the
dignitaries of the Romans he headed for St Peter the apostle’s church
with prayers and praises of God, and he honourably sang a mass for the
Safety of the People 115 in the perpetual security and stability of the city.
When these sacred offices were finished, he honoured and enriched all
the nobles of Rome with manifold gifts not only of gold and silver but
also of silk textiles. That day there was great joy for all; it was the 27th
day of June, the day before the vigils of SS Peter and Paul the apostles.
And throughout the whole city of Rome there were celebrations of
unbounded gladness and unmeasured rejoicing. Because of this, it is the
more meet and fitting that we should continually implore the Lord
almighty with our whole hearts and pure minds for such a great prelate
and shepherd, through whom we know that such an admirable and
honourable work had, with the comfort of Christ’s power, been
accomplished and completed by swift exertion for the safety of all

112 chirographum, cf. Col. 2.14.

113 Or ‘personalized’, ‘specific’; the same word and sense recur in c. 80. The grammar
of Leo’s particular, personal or specific addition is shaky.

114 The original of this prayer (as far as ‘from thy piety’) is assigned in the Gregorian
Sacramentary (70) to the Major Litany on 25 April, to be said when the procession
reached the atrium of St Peter’s; so too Triplex Sacramentary, formula 1615; it is not in
the Gelasian Sacramentary (which does not have the Major Litany).

115 The name is semi-technical, since the proper texts of the mass for that intention began
with an introit starting with the words Salus populi.

144

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Christians, and also in our prayers that he may enjoy long life 116 and
then, for his uncounted efforts and labours, deservedly possess eternal
rewards with all the saints for ever.

75. In St Synzygius’s church in the city of Blera 117 this blessed pope
provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth with gold-studded panels in the middle
with an effigy of the Saviour, with 3 prase jewels on his head, and of
St Synzygius and of the blessed prelate; and 4 gold-interwoven veils.

In the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati he provided silver
candlesticks, 1 pair, weighing 5 lb 6 oz; and 4 silver bowls weighing ..
lb. In God’s mother St Mary’s church at St Laurence’s outside the wall,
he provided 27 gold-interwoven veils. 76. In St Clement the martyr and
pontiffs church this prelate provided a fine gold carved diadem, without
jewels, which hangs over the high altar, with a gold cross in the middle
with 5 glass jewels fixed into that cross, and 4, again of glass, which
hang loose, weighing 50 exagia.

In St Hippolytus the martyr’s church on the island called Arsis 118 at
Porto, he presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth with silver-worked

116 Another sign of composition while Leo IV was alive; see introduction to this life.

117 Synzygius (‘yoke-fellow, team-mate’) as the name of a saint at Blera was explained
by De Rossi as a hellenized form produced in the Byzantine period of a genuine local
saint Sentias (now called St Senzia): the Hieronymian Martyrology has on 25 May ‘on an
island of Tuscia at the city of Blera’ a group of names of which the first is Sentias (many
variant readings in MSS) and another is ‘Vincentius’. Delehaye (Mart. Hieron.) reported
that municipal statutes in the archive of the commune, compiled about 1550, state that his
relics were preserved in Blera’s ancient cathedral, the church of St Nicholas, along with
the relics of St ‘Viventius’. St Nicholas could be a later dedication of the church
mentioned in the LP. St Viventius’s is said to be the old name of St Mary’s church at
Blera, which also claimed the relics of this saint, a bishop whose feast is celebrated on 11
December; as often in the Hieronymian, one local saint has attracted another away from
his original day. Blera is not on an island, but the Hieronymian’s reference is explicable
from the saint’s legend (BHL 7581): Sentias brought the body of St Mamilianus to the
island of Egilium (Giglio), made for Blera, baptized many, and died in peace on 25 May.
Nothing certain is known of the saint; Lanzoni, 522-526 (cf. 1096), thought, improbably,
that a martyr had been turned into a confessor. Another version (BHL 7582) has Sentias
go to Spoleto and die there, and the Spoletines build a basilica over his body; this is
supposed to be the basilica of S. Salvatore not far from Spoleto.

118 LP (Silvester) 34:28 BP 24 has an island called Assis between Porto and Ostia; MS
E 1 there spells it Arsis as here; the form Assis is found nowhere else. The name must refer
to an island in the Tiber delta near its estuary, and the church concerned is located on the
present Isola Sacra (cf. 98 n. 92). Nibby (Dintorni 2.135) linked the name with the forest
mentioned in Livy 2.7.2, where the common reading was Arsis, but the form Arsia, from
one MS, confirmed by Valerius Maximus 1.8.5, is now preferred; Plutarch gives Otfpoov
&Xcto<;; Dionysius of Halicarnassus has a spelling which suggests an attempt to link the
name with the Horatii; Ogilvie 1965:249-250 and 413 suggests a connexion with the
unique cognomen Harsa which a later tradition assigned to the early Roman tribune C.
Terentilius; some Livian MSS spell the name Arsa, probably influenced by l Kings 16.9.
Livy’s locality is unknown and is unlikely to be an island in the Tiber.

105. LEO IV

145

chevrons; 4 gold-interwoven veils. In God’s mother the ever-virgin our
lady St Mary’s church 119 in the city called Anagni he presented 1 gold-
interwoven cloth with 4 chevrons; and 4 gold-interwoven veils.

77. In case even now, after what has been elucidated and collected
above as true testimony and in clear outlines, we pass over other things
in an unbecoming silence, it is pleasing to indicate step by step, briefly
indeed, yet clearer than light, the blessed pope’s works, as has been
promised, with the aid of Jesus Christ’s clemency. So when the supreme
bishop’s mind and spirit were ceaselessly slaving on good works worthy
of God, he began to have great solicitude for the city of Porto, precisely
how it could stay secure and free from enemies and the sons of Satan
both in his own time and for the future. And while he was long and
silently taking counsel in his pontifical heart, the almighty Father on
high, who never ceases to help his faithful in righteous and godly
thoughts, stirred up the minds of the Corsicans (in fear of the Saracens
these were in exile from their own territory, and in their fright they
were wandering hither and thither with no land of their own), that they
ought to come as quickly as they could to the Roman see for refuge and
safety; and so it happened. 78. Coming to the sacred home of the
prince of the apostles, they were straightaway presented to our thrice-
blessed lord pope Leo IV. When he and his dignitaries very sensibly
interrogated them on the nature of the current need that threatened them
and had caused them to come, as with one voice they declared before
him in order, their needs, calamities and distress, and that they would
dwell all their days in his and his successor pontiffs’ retinue and service.
Learning this, the benevolent prelate was immediately greatly elated
with joy and gladness, and gave thanks to God who conveyed him such
men, who could dwell for ever in the city of Porto. 79. So having
heard their many promises, the distinguished pope together with his
dignitaries replied to them clearly: ‘If you will take care to carry out in
fact the words you have told us, we have some very good places in
which you can dwell, with the single proviso that you will be good and
faithful to us and the pontiffs our successors. The city we shall give you
is very strong and fortified; with our Redeemer’s protecting help we
have recalled it to its former condition with new gates and buildings
where required. If as we have said you want to stay there, we shall
grant you vineyards and lands and meadows so that you lack nothing;
and we also give you what you and your women and children will be
able to live on in plenty, until you get it from your own labour; also

119 Anagni cathedral.

146

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

oxen, cows and other animals, as we have already stated, if you will do
everything in good spirit.’ 80. Then, hearing such promises, the
Corsican people were even happier, and they immediately asked the
godly pontiff for envoys who could show them the city and district
specifically; and so it was done. They found everything pleased them
and with good will they all gave this undertaking: ‘if our pope and lord
sees fit to grant all that we have toured around, we will with every
enthusiasm come with all our households and furnishings into the
service of St Peter and of him and his successors.’ When they had
toured the city and all the properties, they returned with these envoys
to the venerable pontiff. These envoys, as was said, came and reported
the joyful and beneficial news to him, and that the race of the Corsicans
had fully undertaken to live and die in these places. So all of them were
summoned so that they too 120 could testify in accordance with the
unanimous statements of the envoys, and he issued them a pontifical
charter in accordance with the charter he had promised, to gain reward
and everlasting memory both for the serene Lothar and Louis, the great
emperors, 121 and for himself. The tenor and purport of the preamble
were that it was to remain intact and unchanged as long as they were
totally obedient and faithful to the prelates of the holy see and to the
Roman people; and if, perish the idea, they did not keep the whole
contents of the charter inviolably, it was laid down that it was to be null
and void. 81. The places given them and assigned by the pontifical
envoys, both from the proper ownership of the church and from that of
venerable monasteries, also those individuals who were their
neighbours, 122 are written and can be read in the pontifical privilege
granted them specifically. Lo! the oft-mentioned prelate’s mercy, how

120 Reading ut ipsi for et ipse printed by Duchesne.

121 maiores does not seem to have a comparative force. From here on (852/3) the LP calls
Louis emperor; hitherto (life 104) Lothar has been emperor, Louis merely king. Louis’s
anointing had been performed by Leo in 850, almost certainly on Easter Sunday, 6 April;
cf. AB 850 Nelson 69. He is often called ‘Emperor of Italy’ in dating formulae and in
Frankish sources such as AB and AF. Consciously or otherwise this seems to exclude rule
over all the Franks. On the other hand it could be thought of as emphasizing his role
within Italy and strengthening his hand when he involved himself in affairs at Rome, such
as his attempt to make Anastasius pope in 855, and his presence at Nicholas’s ordination
in 858; cf. Schlesinger 1965:1.799; Zimmermann 1974:379-399; Nelson, AB , 69; Reuter,
AF, 45.

122 If the genitive singulorum hominum is to be taken seriously, this could refer to those
neighbours from whom property was taken. But it had been the custom of census officials
since at least the 3rd century to identify properties on the ground by mentioning
neighbouring landholders, Ulpian in Digest 50.15.4. The practice was common sense, and
can be illustrated from, e.g., the alimentary inscriptions of Veleia and Ligures Baebiani
in the time of Trajan (CIL 11.1147; 9.1455).

105. LEO IV

147

great and how resplendent it was! In defending the city he not only
loved his Roman dignitaries, but he invited men from wherever he could
to assemble for their help and comfort: he loved the defence of the
fatherland and the safety of the people entrusted to him more than
temporal and transitory gain, for which, as we now recall, many have
continually lost their lives along with the possessions in which they
delighted.

82 . After all that has been knit together above in summary fashion,
the holy and venerable prelate most triumphantly accomplished other
works of much the same kind. The walls and gates of the most ancient
cities of Orte and Amelia had fallen to the ground through great old age
and lay utterly destroyed; both thieves and robbers were easily gaining
access into them, with the entrances wide open and no guard to resist
them. This very skilful prelate, seeing how unconcerned the citizens of
these cities were, by his encouragement and endeavour restored to their
former place and condition the cities we have named, strengthening
them by God’s grace with walls and new gates not unlike their old ones.
In these cities just mentioned, the citizens dwell more secure from the
snares of their enemies; also, with the walls and gates closed, the thieves

and robbers spoken of will henceforth not be able to cause any loss or
theft either by night or day.

83 . When these things above mentioned were diligently completed,
he provided in the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati I fine gold
diadem, hanging over the high altar, with chains also of gold, carved
with a gold cross in the middle with 14 jewels, five of which are fixed
in that cross, while the other nine hang loose there, of which six are
pearls and three are jacinths, weighing in all 1 lb Vi oz.

In God’s mother St Mary our lady’s basilica in the Vicus Sardorum 123
he presented a silver-gilt chalice and paten, 1 pair, with an inscription
of the name of lord pope Leo IV, altogether weighing 4 lb 5 oz.

84 . When he had completed uncounted works of supreme beauty in
the Keybearer of heaven’s basilica, this noteworthy and distinguished
prelate set up the doors which the wicked Saracen brood had destroyed
and stripped of their silver; and he adorned them with many silver
panels carved with brilliant and wholesome representations, and repaired
them to a condition more beautiful than before; so that all who come to
enter this basilica give praises to almighty God and to his holy prelacy,
and pray that the many revolving years of life be extended for him who,
by a work of such great splendour and such a great weight of beauty,

123 Duchesne prints Sardonum, but it is presumably the same as the Vicus Sardorum in
c. 11 (q.v.) and c. 86; and MS C has Sardorum here.

148

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

has decorated God’s hall with silver weighing 70 lb. At the beginning
of his pontificate, since the porticoes on the left side 124 of St Peter’s
basilica had fallen through extreme age, this supreme God-beloved
pontiff renewed them more distinctively with speedy endeavour; and he
brilliantly renewed the roofing of this distinguished church with great
beams raised up with defiant craftsmanship. 85. As he saw that the
portico adjoining St Andrew’s church was about to collapse, he freshly
restored and improved it. Relying on unbounded love, he renewed and
decorated the vault which is seen in front of the said hall’s silver
doors. 125 And he performed many kinds of godly activity in that church;
if we were fain to put them in writing, the tongue would not suffice to
tell nor the joints of the writers’ fingers have strength to endure.

So when he was accomplishing many notable works in various of
God’s churches, this blessed pontiff renewed to a greater beauty and
strength the portico 126 in front of God’s holy mother’s basilica close to
St Laurence’s basilica outside the walls.

86. In God’s holy mother’s church at Vicus Sardorum at the 30th
mile from Rome he presented 4 catholic books: the Gospels, the
Kingdoms, 127 the Psalter, and the Homilies.

In St Martin the confessor and pontiffs church outside St Peter the
apostle’s gate, 1 silver canister with chains, weighing 4 lb 2 oz. In the
church of the SS Quattuor Coronati he provided 2 fine silver censers
weighing 2 lb 1 oz. In St Petronilla’s church he provided 3 gold-
interwoven cloths and 12 veils, 4 of them gold-interwoven, 3 of Spanish
and 5 of linen. In God’s mother St Mary’s church which this blessed
pontiff newly constructed from the ground over the Schola Saxonum,
he presented 3 gold-interwoven cloths, also 4 gold-interwoven veils.

87. In St Peter the apostle’s basilica this blessed pontiff provided 27
silvered candles, which stand in the presbyterium, weighing in all 40 lb.
At the entrance and in the middle of the presbyterium he coated the

124 Krautheimer, Corpus 5.175, suggests that left here means north. More naturally, one
approaches St Peter’s from the east, and left means south. At the beginning of the next
chapter the portico at St Andrew’s is certainly on the south side of St Peter’s. Porticoes
may refer to the roofing of the aisle or to buildings attached outside.

125 The portico immediately outside St Peter’s.

126 Krautheimer, Corpus 2.138, remarks that, given the site of the basilica maior on the
Verano (there was no entrance portico, as the people entered through doors in the apse),
this passage might refer to the portico which came from the city at the Porta Tiburtina and
finished in front of the apse. The earliest references to this are 91:12 and 97:74 (Gregory
II and Hadrian I rebuilt it), but it may have been of the same 5th-century date as the
porticoes leading to St Peter’s and St Paul’s {id. 2.12).

127 ‘Kingdoms’ is the name in the Septuagint of the four books (called ‘Kings’ in the
Vulgate) generally known as 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings.

105. LEO IV

149

beams with fine silver weighing 67 lb 3 oz. While he was inflamed with
enthusiasm for the heavenly fatherland and was decorating Christ’s
churches in order with precious metals and ornaments, he next provided
many other things in St Peter the apostle and prince’s hall: 1 fine silver
crown with 4 silver chains, with 42 dolphins, weighing in all 13 lb.
Ever relying on Christ’s help and inspired by God, this pontiff provided
round St Peter the apostle’s altar 4 green silk veils with gold-studded
panels, with an effigy of the Saviour and of the apostles Peter and Paul
and of the bountiful prelate himself, and in the middle gold-studded
crosses and chevrons with roundels in which are images of the apostles
adorned with wondrous beauty; on feast days they are hung there to
give splendour. 88. There too he provided other white all-silk veils
with roses, wondrously adorned with lattice-work, overshadowing the
Easter ceremonies. He presented another small crown there with 4
chains and 10 dolphins, with a lily and a hook, weighing 2 lb. This
blessed prelate’s mind being ever devoted as a lion, 128 he endeavoured
with enormous love to adorn Jesus Christ’s churches with precious
ornaments, to gain salvation and everlasting life. He did what none of
his predecessor pontiffs had thought to do: no doubt fervent with and
compelled by the Holy Ghost, he decreed the making of fine gold
crowns, resplendent with the noble faces of Christ and the saints, for
Peter the prince of the apostles’ church, close to the altar under which
his sacred body rests; he decreed that two of them be made, to hang on
right and left, adorned with gold chains and pommels and prase jewels,
with 60 dolphins in all, and weighing 20 lb. 89. In the same church he
provided a silver crucifix, depicted with wondrous work, which shines
with great beauty and is placed on the left $i^ Yfhffl [j]j

129

between the great columns, weighing 6214 lb. In St Andrew the
apostle’s oratory which adjoins St Peter’s church this blessed pontiff of
the supreme see provided 1 silk cloth representing eagles, with in the
middle a gold-studded panel on which there shine images depicting
Christ and his disciples on right and left, and the bountiful prelate
himself.

After similarly completing all the work with beautiful adornments in

128 A play on words with the pope’s name.

129 Or ‘of the entrance’. But the eastern end of the Constantinian nave near the entrance
was not demolished until 1605, and the cross here mentioned seems to be one that was
rescued from the western part demolished by Julius II nearly a century earlier. The cross
is mentioned by various 16th-century authors. It was nearly 3 metres high and 2Vi metres
wide; only the figure on it was silver, and was almost life-size (1.54 m). It escaped the
pillaging of Charles V’s army in 1527, but the canons had it melted down in 1550 (see
Duchesne, and Cascioli as cited in Duchesne III. 124).

150

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati, he provided a cloth of the same
silk with a gold-studded panel, representing the miracle which the Lord
Christ worked to satisfy abundantly 5000 men with sustenance from 5
loaves and 2 fishes. 130

90. Amidst all these things written above, the oft-named holy prelate
began frequently to have especial care and anxiety about the individual
rulers of churches, that is bishops, priests, deacons and all the militia of
Christians. So he wished, as in fact happened, to set before them with
Christ’s help a new norm from the ancient authorities, 131 on how each
of them should lead a chaste and sober life and should in every way
please God, to whom we owe it to present an ever blameless service.
Then, with the Holy Ghost’s grace revealing it to him, and on the
advice of the serene emperors Lothar and Louis, in the 30th and in the
5th year of their emperorship and the 7th year of this prelate’s
pontificate, on the 8th day of December in the 2nd indiction [853], 132 he
assembled a holy and venerable synod in St Peter the apostle’s church.
91. At it, this catholic and apostolic man and another 67 bishops 133 were
in session with him, four of whom were sent by the emperors, Joseph
of Ivrea, Nottingus of Brescia, Peter of Spoleto and another Peter of
Arezzo. With them in session also was Paul, deacon of the holy church
of Ravenna, taking the place of his archbishop John, not counting the
priests, deacons and clergy of holy mother church. Then he ordered that
the deacons 134 of the holy and universal apostolic see should read before
them all 42 chapters which are acknowledged as surely pertaining to the
salvation and gain of all Christian men. He bade that these chapters be
written into the holy canons after the other decrees of the pontiffs, as to
be kept inviolate by all in time to come, so that all bishops would have
the example of this authority before their eyes and could better instruct
and educate their subjects. 92. Then after other matters at this synod
Anastasius, 135 cardinal priest of St Marcellus’s titulus , was canonically

130 Matthew 14.13-21, Mark 6.32-44, Luke 9.10-17, John 6.1-15.

131 Mainly, it seems, pope Eugene II who held a council in 826; see the introduction to
life 101. The council of 8 December 853 issued 42 canons (Mansi 14.1009-1016), 38 of
which were repeated with slight additions from the earlier council (14.999-1009).

132 The dating formulae here given were copied from the Acts of the council, though
these rightly give ‘37th’ for ‘30th’ as Lothar’s regnal year. But both the Acts and the LP
give Louis IPs regnal year as 5th; it should be ‘4th’ (cf. n. 120). AB also garbles the
regnal years as the ‘42nd’ of both emperors (Nelson 147).

133 The Acts have 67 bishops’ signatures, if those of the pope and of the representatives
of absentees are counted. The five persons named here head the list. One of the priests
present was the next pope, Benedict III (cf. 106:2 n. 3).

134 Named in the acts as Benedict and Nicholas; the latter would be pope in 858.

135 Mansi 14.1017-21. On his career to this point see the introduction to this life.

105. LEO IV

151

deposed by them all because he had deserted his paroecia for 5 years
against what the canons lay down, and is even today 136 dwelling in
foreign parts. He had been unwilling to come to two councils assembled
for his case, neither when summoned by apostolic letters nor when
summoned by three bishops, Nicholas, Petronacius and John, 137 so the
holy synod unanimously and deservedly deposed him and deprived him
of sacerdotal office in accordance with what the sacred canons contain
concerning such matters, in the year, month, day and indiction above
noted.

93. After this council’s excellent sentence, this prelate’s blessed mind,
ever inflamed with the fire of heavenly love, again began to have great
endeavour for the restoration of the adornments of all the equipment of
God’s churches. In the church of St Peter the kingdom of heaven’s
keybearer he provided 1 fine silver lantern with 2 wicks, weighing 16
lb. In St Martin’s monastery which adjoins this church of the prince of
the apostles, he provided another lantern cast in silver and with 2 wicks,
weighing 27'/2 lb; and in SS John and Paul’s monastery 138 he provided
another silver lantern like the above ones, weighing 22 'A lb; these stand
close to the lectern on Sundays and feastdays and shine with very bright
light for reading the sacred lessons. 94. This holy pope provided
railings cast in silver with lattice-work at the entrance to the
presbyterium and in front of the confessio of his beloved St Peter the
apostle; radiant with beautiful splendour they provoke admiration in the
minds of men; two of them weigh 642 lb, the other two 630 lb.

And in St Vincent’s church at Frascati 139 he presented 1 gold-
interwoven cloth.

95. But as we have often said this serene prelate’s mind was filled

136 Perhaps another sign of composition while Leo IV was alive; the words imply that
Anastasius had not yet returned and made his attempt to become pope. But the LP may
merely be paraphrasing Leo’s speech at the council (Mansi 14.1007). Leo uses paroechiae
for Anastasius’s current location (Aquileia), not for his titulus in Rome.

137 Leo also names these three bishops without specifying their sees. Present at the
council (Mansi 14.1018) were Nicholas of Anagni, Petronacius (or Petronax) of Albano,
and seven bishops named John. If the three are named in the same order of precedence
as at the council, the choice for John’s see is reduced from seven to three; and if he was
from near Rome he will have been bishop of Falerii (CivitA Castellana).

138 On this monastery (at St Peter’s) see 98 n. 137.

139 Otherwise unknown, but the LP’s phrase is the same as that used in this life to
describe two other churches at Frascati (St Sebastian’s, cc. 37, 60, and St Mary’s, c. 62).
Hence Duchesne rejected the notion that this church was the chapel of St Vincent
immediately north of St Peter’s, which Maffeo Vegio in the 15th century styled ‘the
temple of St Vincent called by the ancients by the name of Frascati’. Vegio’s ‘ancients’
are unidentified; if he had read the present text he might have wrongly assumed that St
Vincent’s was close to St Peter’s which has just been mentioned.

152

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

with great love for St Peter the blessed prelate and apostle, prince of the
apostles, and he ever desired to carry out many adornments of his
supreme church, whose throne by God’s dispensing power he ruled.
Thus he provided over his holy altar a gold-studded cloth representing
in the middle the Saviour, amidst angels with shining faces, giving the
keys of the kingdom to Peter the apostle, and resplendent on right and
left with the glorious passion of Peter and Paul; between them is
depicted this prelate presenting the city which at Peter’s intercession he
had ordered to be built, glistening with a cross in gold and jewels; and
around and above the altar there are textiles, silk on top, worked with
a precious representation of eagles, two of which are gilded. There too
he presented 4 veils with gold-studding, on which the prelate himself is
depicted, with the Saviour’s image shining among angels’ faces,
presenting the city he had completed from the ground up.

96. As we have albeit briefly now fully described the adornments this
pontiff presented to St Peter’s church, let us now for an everlasting
record endeavour to give a summary notification of what he wrought in
the church of St Paul the apostle, teacher of the gentiles, after the
ungodly looting of the Agareni. 140 Over his holy body he provided a
canopy of wondrous beauty with a huge weight of silver, embellished
with silver columns, weighing 946 lb.

But although the pontiff with kind intention bestowed various
ornaments with enormous desire, both before and subsequently, on the
generality of churches, he was always concerned to present to St Peter
something excellent and more beautiful; so he presented him with three
olive masoricae of admirable beauty, worked in silk and colourfully
embroidered, which on feast days hang around the high altar.

97. In St Marcian’s church in the domucella ]4] called Balnearola he
provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth and 2 Spanish veils.

In Christ’s martyr the deacon St Laurence’s church he presented 24
gold-interwoven veils which hang in the arches between the great
columns. 142

In St Clement the martyr and pontiffs church he provided a silver

140 Something is at last said to fulfil the promise made in c. 13; yet the compiler reverts
to St Peter’s almost immediately, and repairs to St Paul’s shrine itself had to wait, it
seems, until the next pontificate (106:22).

141 domucella seems to be a variant for domusculta. Lanzoni, 529, thought that this
church might be St Marcian’s at Bracciano, dated archaeologically to the 8th or 9th
century, and with the oldest campanile near Rome; there is also an ancient cemetery there.
Identifying the St Marcian concerned is an insoluble problem.

142 The columns on either side of what is now the choir at S. Lorenzo fuori le mura
(rather than of the Constantinian basilica which by this date was called St Mary’s).

105. LEO IV

153

handbasin, 1 pair, with, engraved in them, the likeness of a man’s head
with a vine, and another representation, weighing 3 lb.

98. In God’s mother St Mary’s church 143 at Aurelia, called ‘on the
Via Aurelia’, this blessed and bountiful prelate presented 1 gold-
interwoven cloth. There too, in St Stephen’s church he presented 1 other
gold-interwoven cloth.

Protected by the right hand on high and ever devoted to God’s
service, and persevering with sincere mind after many good actions, this
distinguished and bountiful prelate adorned and painted in beautiful
colours SS Silvester and Martin’s church 144 which his predecessor lord
Sergius had newly built from its lowest walls; even today its great
beauty provokes admiration in human eyes. He coated and adorned its
venerable holy altar with fine silver weighing 116 lb.

99. So after the magnificent prelate accomplished with all his mind’s
devotion the beautiful and praiseworthy works of God’s various
churches, [he was concerned] in case the Christian people in the castrum
of Centumcellae should continue to perish at the hands of the enemy as
was often wont to occur. For 40 years 145 the castrum had remained with
its walls destroyed and abandoned by its occupants. These had left their
own residences for fear of the Saracens until the present, and the people
they had left behind, in the manner of beasts, set up their dwellings in
woodland glades and untracked mountains; even there, for fear of their
enemies day and night, they continued to have no sleep for their eyes
nor any bit of rest in the normal human way. 100. When this so dutiful
and praiseworthy prelate was daily grieving for their burden and their
quite intolerable, immeasurable and unbelievable distress, with many
tears and uncounted prayers he assiduously besought the Lord, the
creator of all things, to see fit by the gift of his grace to show him
where the city of Centumcellae could be moved to for the safety and
deliverance of this Christian people. He made his way to it, and with
diligent care and endeavour he saw and inspected the areas which
adjoined and bordered it. But when a suitable place was seen for
building a city, it had a shortage of water, which for men is always very
necessary. After traversing all the areas, as we have said, he came at

143 Duchesne thought that this church and the next must have been on an estate in the
domusculta Galeria (cf. 97:55 with n. 98). They are probably those listed in a bull of John
XIX (J4076, December 1026; Marini, Papiri, 75) among the churches of the see of Silva
Candida: titulum s. Stephani in Matera, titulum s. Marie in Matera.

144 Cf. 104:39 and n. 73. This is the last literary record of the church before 1201.

145 The figure seems exact. Cf. ARF 813 (cited at 100 n. 77); the new city was dedicated
on 15 August 854 (c. 103).

154

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

length, by the favour of God’s mercy, to a place that was excellent and
mightily protected, over which his heart was greatly widened, 146 because
it provided a supply of water to comfort the people, and other human
needs, and water-mills grinding at full capacity. 101. For the venerable
pontiffs memory and praise it is worthwhile that all people should truly
believe and know exactly how it was that God’s clemency showed him
this work which he long investigated and brought to a conclusion
through God’s counsel and consultation.

One night, when the distinguished bishop lay as usual on his bed and
was as normal thinking of God’s works, he was transported in his
dreams to a place foreseen and pre-ordained, at the 12th mile 147 from
Centumcellae; and to a certain Peter, master of the soldiers, as if he
were physically present in the actual vision, he indicated one by one the
several places where with the pontiffs help he was to found and
construct the churches and the gates, and showed him that, thanks to the
narrowness of the place, only two gates had to be constructed there. In
this secret vision he drew its design with his own fingers. 102. When
day came, he began to have great solicitude about the dream he had
seen, and immediately ordered this Peter to come to his presence. He
related to him everything he had seen in his dreams and provided him
with many mancuses 148 in silver so he could speedily achieve the taking
of the people there, by going with them to the replacement for the city
of Centumcellae.

By God’s favour everything was built and is now resplendent, just as
the praiseworthy pope designed it with his own hand in his dream; from
his own name he gave it the name Leopolis. After they had begun the
building, he came to it with a triumphant multitude of his faithful to see
and contemplate the construction. When he saw the gates and churches
in those precise areas just as he had shown them, and that his own

146 For the expression animus dilatatus cf. perhaps 2 Cor. 6.11.

147 The place concerned is now Cencelle, on the north of the road from Civitavecchia to
Tarquinia. As at the Leonine City, inscriptions were placed over the gates; one survives
(Marucchi, Nuovo Bull., VI, 1900, 202), with the monogram of Leo and four lines of
verse: ‘Though this city is founded within a small wall, none of men’s wars shall be able
to harm it; now let the savage warrior desist from it, let the enemy desist, so that no one
can violate this city.’ In 889 when security was restored, the inhabitants returned to their
old site but left the old city name at the newer site (the name Leopolis seems to have had
no more success than the name Gregoriopolis at Ostia); they referred to the old,
reoccupied, site as Civitas Vetula, whence Civitavecchia. At the abandoned site, traces of
the towers, walls, buildings and roads have been made out (Guglielmotti 1896:1.57; Lauer
1900:147 and plan).

148 A mancuse is a gold coin (cf. 97:77 with n. 161 and 104:43 with n. 78). The text may
mean that Leo provided the equivalent in silver.

105. LEO IV

155

desire was fulfilled by Christ’s protection, he therefore gave boundless
thanks to the almighty Lord, who had seen fit to show him such a place
where the people might be safe and where there was an abundant supply
of water, and who had even bestowed stones and sand so that the newly
constructed buildings could achieve greater size without labour by the
workmen. 103. Gladdened by all this, the pontiff toured round the city
of Leopolis on his own feet with litanies and prayers; with three
prayers, representing the Trinity, he consecrated it for ever, and he
solemnly performed the office of mass as was customary, and bade that
blessed water be cast around the walls. Through the greatness of his
love he distributed with his own hands no small dispensation of money
to all the people; he commended to the Lord almighty the people and
the city that God had shown, that the enemy may never capture or
occupy it. With all this achieved, he returned to his residence with great
joy and alacrity, now that the entire circuit of the walls had been
completed and accomplished by Christ’s help in the eighth month and
on the fifteenth day, in the eighth year of his prelacy and in the second
indiction [854].

104 . In the churches he built there he presented many gifts: in St
Peter’s church, 149 7 large and small bowls cast in silver, weighing in all
16 lb 1 oz; 1 gilded chandelier; 3 gilded beakers; 5 large and small
clasped garments; 1 silver-gilt cross with 1 jewel; 1 other gold cross
with a monocossis in the middle; and another silver cross with 40
jewels; 1 gold gilt 150 thurible; 1 Saxon dextra; 12 gold crowns; 1 bowl
and 2 ostrich-eggs. 151 In the same church in this city he provided 2 silk
cloths, one of which has a gold-studded panel in the middle and the
other has a cross and 4 roundels, with chevrons, in the middle; and 18
gold-interwoven veils; a fine silver crucifix weighing 7 lb.

105 . There too, in St Leo’s church he presented 1 gilt paten, 1 silver
chalice, 2 cloths, one of which is gold-interwoven, decorated around
with all-silk, with in the middle a gold-studded wheel and chevrons, and
the other is of Spanish. Also 7 codices of catholic [books]: the Histories,
a Solomon, 152 an Antiphonary and a Psalter, a Sacramentary, the Acts 153

149 This was the dedication of the only church recorded at the old site of Centumcellae
( 100 : 26 ).

150 aureum exauratum ; perhaps an error for argentum exaura turn.

151 Perhaps, as in Coptic churches, a symbol or rebirth and resurrection, an ostrich being
more easily obtained than a phoenix.

152 The various ‘wisdom’ literature of the Old Testament and Apocrypha.

153 Of saints, not the Acts of the Apostles.

156

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and the Homilies, and a Gospel with silver panels 154 .

He adorned God’s sacred altar over St Peter the apostle’s holy body
with silver and gilded sheets on right and left with the miracles of that
prince of the apostles; they now glisten with great beauty like the stars
of heaven, and weigh in all 84 lb 5 oz.

106 . After this holy pope, inspired by the divine clemency of the
everlasting God, had done in various places for the safety of Christians
such noteworthy deeds and immeasurable activity, for his great love of
the heavenly fatherland he took care every day to adorn the holy Roman
church, which is, as the Lord said, founded on a firm rock and is
gloriously resplendent from the holy name of St Peter the prince of the
apostles, with precious decoration of every metal. There too 155 he
completed a silver lectern engraved with exquisite craftsmanship and
standing on four feet; at the top of it there gleams the head of a lion;
and it weighs 31 lb 11 oz. As for the 4 wooden candles which used for
a long time to be set up on feastdays in the sacred middle of the
pontiffs’ presbyterium , he wisely decided to coat them with fine silver
and established that they stay set up there permanently; no predecessor
of his had thought of doing this; they weigh 55 lb in all. 107 . There
too he provided great silver candlesticks, 1 pair, weighing 48 lb 10 oz,
on which are set fine silver lanterns with 2 wicks, shining close to the
high altar, weighing in all 49 lb; and 7 other silvered candlesticks,
weighing 25 lb 3 oz; he also provided 7 other dark iron candlesticks
with silver on top, weighing 21 lb 3 oz. On the altar itself he provided
a gold-worked cloth, shining all over with white pearls, with jewelled
panels on right and left, with gold roundels around it, on which this
prelate’s noteworthy name is inscribed.

108 . St Martin’s monastery was about to collapse through long old
age; he restored it with wondrous buildings of houses, and he
thoroughly adorned it to better honour than it was before. 156 In it [he

154 How this adds to 7 is not clear. The Acts and Homilies are more likely to have been
separate volumes than the Psalter and Antiphonary.

155 In St Peter’s presumably.

isr> This in spite of the fact that Leo III is claimed to have virtually rebuilt it, 98:90;
perhaps it had suffered when the Saracens attacked St Peter’s in 846. But there is further
evidence that Leo IV showered privileges on St Martin’s, his own former monastery. On
10 August 854 (very close to the presumed date of the present chapter) he issued a bull
confirming its very extensive possessions (J2653; Marini, Papiri, 14-15; Schiaparelli
1901:432-6 no. 2; Ferrari, 232, no. 12, with 236). Leo describes St Martin’s as behind the
apse at an entrance into St Peter’s (there was an entrance to the choir of St Peter’s beside
the apse, in front of St Martin’s). He confirms its right to the following: St Saviour’s
church for the burial of all pilgrims, the churches (St Mary’s, St Michael’s and St Justin’s)
of the three Scholae of Saxons, Frisians and Lombards, St Zeno’s church (HUlsen, Chiese

105. LEO IV

157

presented] a white roseate cloth, with roses and the Saviour with the
apostles and the Virgin, inscribed with the name of lord Leo IV; also 5
white roseate veils, one of them with 13 small jewels; 3 silver-gilt
almonds. In the church of the SS Quattuor Coronati he provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth.

Also, in St Peter the prince of the apostles’ basilica this supreme and
orthodox pontiff, prompted by God’s inspiration, provided 83 fine silver
chalices which hang beneath the main arch and between the great
columns on right and left, weighing in all 441 lb. There in front of the
vestibule of the sacred altar he built a beam of wondrous beauty which,
after the dire race’s wicked looting, he adorned with fine silver; on it
are set God’s holy and venerable images, weighing 60 lb.

109 . In St Peter the apostle’s church in the city of Leopolis he
presented 1 silver-gilt thurible. In God’s mother St Mary’s church in the
Vicus Sardorum, a silver-gilt bowl with a canister, weighing .. lb.

In the venerable Jerusalem monastery 157 close to St Peter the apostle’s
church he provided a gold-interwoven cloth with roundels, and
decorated around with gold-studded edging and 2 mizine veils and 3
gold-interwoven ones. This God-protected, venerable and distinguished
pontiff provided the propitiatorium for St Peter the prince of the
apostles’ sacred altar where his holy body rests, spanoclist , with 72 lb
silver and 80 lb gold.

110 . In his time 158 one Daniel, master of the soldiers, blinded with a
heap of iniquity and stupidity, made his way to the serene footsteps of
the emperor lord Louis, and had no hesitation in saying many false,
unnecessary and utterly incredible words about Gratian, 159 the eminent

502) with houses, etc., ‘in this our new Leonine City’; various holdings outside the Porta
S. Petri on the Via Clodia at the 4th and 5th mile; lands on the Via Aurelia outside the
same gate; St Sebastian’s monastery and its property in the city of Centumcellae; lands
on the Via Appia in the territory of Velletri; others on the Via Clodia at the 5th mile;
others with St Valentine’s oratory at Orvieto at the 25th mile; two hospices near St
Peter’s, and three oratories in the basilica, those of St Xystus iuxta/errata , of St Leo, and
of St Hadrian. Ferrari, 236, comments: ‘Without doubt this bull represents the high point
of the monastery’s history, when its influence and wealth were matched by few others.’

157 See 98 n. 164.

15s There is no other source for these events. But there are many other traces of political
tensions between Leo and Louis II; see the introduction to this life.

159 In a letter to Louis in September 852, Leo reported on the behaviour of a man of this
name (J2620, MGH Ep 5.585 no. 1): ‘Gratian has not feared to kill many men with steel,
water and clubs, and, what is worse, has bound many men with oaths of loyalty to
himself, a thing which as you well know it is permitted to none but the emperor or the
pope to do’. This is probably not the same man; if he is the same, his relations with the
pope must have changed or he would not now be superista. At 106:11 his title is
expanded to ‘superista of the sacred patriarchate’, i.e. chief of the pope’s military guard

158

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

master of the soldiers and outstanding superista and counsellor. He
persistently accused him out of envy and falsehood; he told the emperor:
‘Gratian, superista of the city of Rome, whom you believe loyal to you,
said to me privately when I was alone in his house and he was
murmuring a lot about the Franks, that the Franks do no good for us
and give us no help, but instead they violently steal what is ours. Why
do we not call on the Greeks, strike a peace treaty with them and expel
the king and race of the Franks from our kingdom and lordship?’
Hearing this, the said emperor was inflamed with unbounded fury, and
without even sending letters to the Roman pontiff and senate he took
care to come speedily to Rome. As is customary, when he came, lord
pope Leo was seated at the top of the great steps of St Peter the
apostle’s. He received him honourably and began to appease 160 him with
sweet words of preaching.

111. One day, the emperor and the holy pontiff Leo were in session
with all the Roman dignitaries and the noble Franks, in the house 161
which pope Leo III of blessed memory had built close to St Peter the
apostle’s church, and he held a law sitting about that accusation. Then
Daniel, putting on a wicked front and imbued with false thought,
publicly stated: ‘This Gratian asked my advice about stealing this land
of Rome from your power and handing it over to the Greeks.’
Straightaway not only Gratian but all the Romans said before the
emperor: ‘You liar! There is no word of truth in what you say’. 112.
The emperor and all the nobility of the Romans and Franks realized that
this Daniel had uttered such a charge against Gratian out of falsehood
and envy, and immediately the clement emperor, unwilling to
contravene what had been laid down by the Roman emperors of old,
laid down that they should try him under Roman law. In this trial
Daniel himself was trapped by the words of many and he showed by his
own speech that what he had stated about him was false. So he was
publicly handed over to Gratian, so that he could have power to do with

at the Lateran, by now the centre of government. Lay and clerical judges held courts
there, as is shown, e.g., by Leo’s letter written when he was leaving for Ravenna about
May 853 (J2633, MGH Ep 5.599 no. 23): ‘We order that in our absence neither the order
of the church nor that of the palace should stop, but on the set days all the nobles are to
attend at the Lateran palace just as if we were here, and see to law and justice for those
who ask and require it’. The Libellus de imperatoria potestate {MGH SS 3.720) also
speaks of a ‘place of judgment in the Lateran, where a particular place is named At the
Wolf called the mother of the Romans’ (the bronze wolf now on the Capitol was kept in
a room in the Lateran).

16(1 This implies that in Leo’s mind Louis would assume not merely the truth of Gratian’s
alleged disloyalty but also that Gratian had Leo’s support.

161 Cf. 98:27 and n. 68.

105. LEO IV

159

him whatever he wished. But when Daniel had already been handed
over, the emperor asked Gratian for him with much humble
supplication. Gratian immediately gave him over freely, full favour was
restored to him, and he was in this way delivered from the peril of
death. 162

113. These things accomplished, the emperor departed; and not many
days later holy lord pope Leo IV fell asleep in the Lord, 17 July. He
was buried in St Peter’s. 163 He performed two ordinations, one in
December, the other in March, 19 priests, 8 deacons; for various places
63 bishops. 164

162 Daniel, having failed to secure the Gratian’s conviction, had been subjected under
Roman law to a counter-charge of calumnia (malicious prosecution) from Gratian; he was
convicted, but saved from Gratian’s vengeance by Louis, who wanted to protect his over-
loyal supporter, and thereby, no doubt, to encourage the reporting of any treasonable
activity.

163 Cf. n. 201 to 98:113.

164 One of these bishops was Athanasius of Naples, ordained at the altar of St Gregory
on 15 March (presumably in 851, when it was a Sunday), Vita Athanasii 3, MGH SSrL
442.

106. BENEDICT III

161

106. BENEDICT III (855-858).

The anonymous author of this life began his work, it seems, almost
as soon as Benedict was ordained; the same writer would be responsible
for the first draft of life 107. Both lives follow the method of the author
of 105 of repeating a eulogy of the pope after dealing with his
ordination and before excerpting the register material (105:18, 106:20,
107:10). But unlike the author of 105, the new author, for all his
execrable grammar, makes an attempt at Latin style, partly through the
use of favourite words (such as parvipendere , four times), but especially
through the use of inversion, which is carried out to a point at which
maladroit phrasing can destroy the sense of what he is writing. He had
interesting events to record. After a summary of Benedict’s early career
(cc. 1-3), he gives a detailed account of the challenge launched against
Benedict by Anastasius who was elected pope at Orte, the conflict
between the Roman clergy and Louis II’s envoys who supported
Anastasius’s claim, and the victory and ordination of Benedict (cc. 4-
20). For all its bias against Anastasius, the story is quite well treated
except for the failure to give either the details of the negotiations on the
future of Benedict, Anastasius and others in c. 19 (see n. 45), or the
dates of any of the events. In the former case details may have been
concealed lest the wrong impression about Benedict be given. The latter
case is simply negligence, and it makes precision over Benedict’s dates
impossible (see n. 1).

What is remarkable is that this compromising account of Anastasius’s
actions has survived at all. After Benedict’s death Anastasius returned
to papal favour and influence as secretary to Nicholas and librarian
under Hadrian II. The explanation can only be that the account was
written while Benedict was alive and the author was free, and that his
work was disseminated widely as soon as it was written, as papal lives
seem to have been, so that its destruction after 858 was no longer
feasible. Yet an attempt at suppression may have been made. Of the
four manuscripts which have the full text of the lives of Leo IV’s
successors, C 4 , the oldest, omits all from 105:109 to the end of this life,
and in another, E 6 , the episode of Anastasius has been suppressed by the
omission of everything from the last five words of c. 5 through to ‘the
elected one, blessed Benedict’ in c. 18; these lacunae cannot be
fortuitous.

The rest of the life, cc. 21-35, is almost entirely devoted to details of
the restorations of churches and the gifts of vessels, lights, images,
books and textiles: much was done in a short pontificate. St Paul’s,

162

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

neglected under Leo IV, at last got the attention it required after the
Saracen incursion of 846 (cc. 22, 26-28, 31). Otherwise c. 23 recounts
the flood of the Tiber in January 856, and cc. 33-34 mention gifts sent
by the emperor Michael and those presented by Tfthelwulf king of
Wessex. Finally c. 36 mentions Benedict’s decree on clerical funerals,
the ordinations he conducted, and his burial. Geertman suggests a
chronology for cc. 21-35; this should not be extended beyond c. 32 (see
below). Annual headings are inserted at the appropriate places.

The account of Benedict’s pontificate after his ordination is
inadequate, and few details are known from elsewhere. In the next life,
c.4, we are told that in his administration Benedict had relied heavily on
his successor Nicholas (who had been a deacon in the service of the
Lateran since the time of Leo IV). There is some exaggeration here;
when policies were similar (as they clearly were in some matters, for
example, marriage discipline and the case of Engeltrude), and when
Nicholas appeared more energetic than his predecessor, it could later be
assumed by a eulogist for Nicholas that he had already been the policy¬
maker. That the same impression of continuity is current today is partly
because much of what we know about Benedict’s policies is
reconstructed from Nicholas’s writings, and Nicholas would have tended
to gloss over differences from his predecessor’s policies and emphasize
similarities. Quite certainly the policy towards Anastasius did not remain
the same.

Nicholas’s life also contains further details about the circumstances
of Benedict’s death: Louis II had just left Rome, and returned there
when the news reached him. But on relations between the Carolingians
and Benedict after his ordination the present life is silent. The death of
Lothar on what was (probably) the very day of Benedict Ill’s ordination
made little difference at Rome, since for some years the old emperor
had left Italian affairs to Louis II. Yet just as Louis had just tried to
interfere in the papal succession, so Benedict now had an opportunity
in the interests of peace to intervene in the disposition of the empire,
and with, at least temporarily, rather more success. Louis had been
dissatisfied with the arrangements his father Lothar had made, and from
early 856 he complained to his uncles Louis the German and Charles the
Bald. It may have been Louis who invited papal involvement. His
brother Lothar II agreed to meet him, and brought with him the old
emperor’s third son Charles (of Provence) to a meeting at Orbe in
Valais (canton Lausanne) in early October 856. Louis II and Lothar II
nearly came to blows, but an accord was signed with the succession
being regulated between the three brothers in a compromise which
Benedict expressly claims to have been his own work (though we are in

106. BENEDICT III

163

the dark exactly how Benedict achieved it): ‘the peace which we
established between Caesar Louis ever-Augustus and his glorious
brothers’(J2669, MGHEp 5.612-4). Charles got Provence and Lyonnais,
Lothar II the rest of Cisalpina, and Louis II had to remain satisfied with
no more than Italy, which was exactly what Lothar I had arranged.

King Lothar II had been married since 855 to Theutberga, daughter
of Boso, and sister of the subdeacon Hubert, whose career was advanced
by his sister’s marriage: his brother-in-law gave him a duchy in the
Jura, where his behaviour attracted the intervention of Benedict. Hubert,
after all, was a cleric as well as a noble, and his licentiousness needed
curbing. Benedict wrote (ibid) to all the archbishops and bishops in
Charles’s kingdom, making it clear that he saw Hubert’s covetousness
as having, ‘to the destruction and endangering of many Christians’,
broken the peace he himself had arranged. Apart from various other
crimes, Hubert had appropriated St Maurice’s monastery at Agaune in
Valais by expelling bishop Aimonius, and had defiled St Peter’s
monastery at Luxeuil by living there with women of easy virtue: he was
to appear at Rome within 30 days under pain of excommunication. His
breaking of the peace, it has been conjectured, could have been through
some kind of interference in Louis’s Italian domains: Hubert was at the
time an ally of Lothar II who had given him his duchy. But as soon as
Lothar started to repudiate his wife, Hubert’s sister Theutberga, and to
accuse Hubert and Theutberga of incest, Hubert became Lothar’s enemy;
in the months before Benedict’s own death, Hubert successfully resisted
Lothar’s attacks on his duchy. Benedict’s threat of excommunication had
not stopped Hubert’s scandalous life with concubines or his violent
adventures with mercenaries. After Benedict’s death, Nicholas also
wanted to intervene, and Hubert tried to justify himself (May 863), but
was finally killed at Orbe in 864.

Hubert and Theutberga had a brother, the Milanese count Boso (his
father’s namesake), who had married Engeltrude, daughter of count
Matfrid and a kinswoman of Lothar II. After giving him two daughters,
Engeltrude, about 856, abandoned her husband, and in the company of
one of his vassals, ‘as an adulteress with an adulterer’, took refuge in
Lothar’s kingdom (eventually she reached the diocese of Cologne). As
the king had now abandoned Theutberga and was living with his
concubine Waldrada he could hardly object to the arrangement. Boso
said he would forgive Engeltrude if she returned; he then approached
Benedict who wrote to Louis II, Lothar, the royal princes, the bishops
and all the faithful, asking them to have the fugitive arrested and sent
back to Boso (cf. letters of Nicholas MGH Ep 6.295, 340, nos. 29 and
53). Benedict’s efforts so shortly before his own death had no success;

164

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Lothar protected Engeltrude, and the matter would come to the attention
of church councils and of pope Nicholas (cf. 107:48). A letter of
Nicholas in 868 hints that Benedict had also been already involved in
the thorny question of Lothar ITs charges against his wife Theutberga
and his attempt to gain a divorce (cf. 107:44-50).

The one known issue which caused difficulties between Rome and
Constantinople under Benedict III was that in which Leo IV had already
become embroiled (see p. 106): Ignatius’s deposition of Gregory of
Syracuse and other Sicilian bishops. Benedict showed himself no less
firm than Leo in upholding Rome’s jurisdiction in the question. Ignatius
wanted confirmation of the sentence, Gregory wanted its annulment, and
Leo ordered the case to be heard by himself. Gregory sent an envoy
named Zacharias to Rome (Nicholas, Ep. 90, MGH Ep 6.500.9);
Ignatius’s envoy was Lazarus, certainly the man mentioned in the LP (c.
33). Lazarus probably left Constantinople before it was known that
Benedict had succeeded Leo. See c. 33, and n. 81, especially for
Stylian’s inaccurate account.

Benedict wrote to Ignatius that he was refusing to confirm the
deposition; he summoned both parties to Rome so that he could judge
the case. Ignatius should either come in person with Zacharias, or he
should conduct his business through apocrisiarii whom the emperor
might send. Meanwhile Benedict was required by the canons to prohibit
the bishops from exercising any of their functions until the case was
heard (so Nicholas, MGH Ep 6.488, 512, nos. 90-91). Hadrian II {Ep.
39, MGH Ep 6.750-4) later remarked on Ignatius’s unwillingness to
receive this letter from Benedict. Ignatius himself later stated that he
had received Benedict’s letter in July (858), and that he himself was
deposed some days later (in fact on 23 November 858); but in any case
when Ignatius received the letter Benedict was already dead. Gregory
knew from his envoy in Rome that Benedict was not supporting
Ignatius, and his own attitude to Ignatius became more insolent than
ever (or so Nicholas claimed, Ep. 90, MGH Ep 6.500.9ff). But
Benedict’s death delayed any decision of the matter, and Ignatius’s
deposition and repacement by Photius later that year removed the need
for a decision. In the longer term these events under Leo and Benedict
could be seen as preliminaries to Nicholas’s struggle with Photius: they
contributed to a growing rift between Rome and the Greek church (Baix
1935:22).

The placing of these events in the LP (c. 33) is out of chronological
order: Lazarus’s arrival in Rome can hardly be later than 855 or 856.
There is a similar dislocation in the case of the next chapter (34),
dealing with the arrival of the king of Wessex. It seems that both

106. BENEDICT III

165

chapters were added by the compiler as a kind of appendix after he had
finished excerpting register material for the pontificate; consequently the
chronological place of c. 35, further donations to St Peter’s, is obscure.

In Brittany, Leo IV had tried (p. 107) but failed to uphold Actard
rather than Gislard as the rightful bishop of Nantes. In 857 the new
duke Salomon presented the pope with a request to regularize the
situation of the Breton episcopate; other bishops had also been ejected
and replaced. Benedict’s reply is lost, but cited in a letter from Nicholas
to Salomon in 862 (J2708, Ep . 107; MGH Ep 6.621.6-10); from this it
is clear that Benedict kept to Leo’s line. No bishop could be deposed
without the judgment of twelve bishops, and certainly not by laymen.
He excommunicated Gislard, but Gislard still kept control of half the
diocese. The schism continued until 1199.

Also inherited from Leo IV was the problem of Hincmar (pp. 103-4).
The great archbishop wanted Benedict to reverse Leo IV’s refusal to
ratify the council of Soissons (853) which had accepted the legitimacy
of Hincmar’s position as archbishop and had annulled the ordinations
carried out by Ebbo after his deposition. Benedict agreed to change
Leo’s policy, but only if the account of the council Hincmar had sent
him was correct (J2664, Mansi 15.110, PL 115.689). He also confirmed
the metropolitan status of Hincmar’s see, subject to the rights of the
pope. The change from Leo’s policy was remarkable: Hincmar {Ep. 11)
later had to deny a charge from Nicholas that he had forged this letter
himself. The effect of Benedict’s acceptance of Soissons was that Rome
supported the prohibition on those whom Ebbo had ordained from
exercising church functions; the pope had stored up trouble for his
successor.

Like Leo (p. 107) Benedict was concerned about questions of
penitential discipline. Two of his letters, to Rathold bishop of
Strasbourg and Salomon bishop of Constance, deal with those cases
which were to be referred to Rome, and show Benedict inflicting
canonical penalties outside the ecclesiastical province of Rome on those
who committed crimes as serious as parricide and fratricide (Baix
1935:24-5; see J. v. Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum romanorum
inedita III (Stuttgart 1886), p. 3-4, n. 3 and 4).

Little else is recorded of Benedict except his issuing and confirming
of privileges: for example, on 11 May 857 (J2666, Mansi 15.120, PL
115.689) he guaranteed to the monastery of St Denis its properties in
England. Rather earlier, on 7 October 855, he confirmed in its
properties and privileges the monastery of SS Peter, Paul and Stephen
at Corbie in the diocese of Amiens; this is worthy of mention here for
the reason that the original papyrus of this grant survives at Amiens (see

166

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Baix 1935:24; J2663; PL 115.693-701).

Worthy of mention too is a letter to Benedict from Lupus abbot of
Ferri^res in the diocese of Sens ( Ep . 103, cf. also 101 and 102, MGH
Ep 6.89-91). Lupus had visited Rome in 849; now he wanted books, and
knowing about the papal library he sent two monks to make copies and
also to get instruction on Roman customs, since Lupus believed that in
religion and morals variations engendered doubt. The books he wanted
were Cicero’s De oratore , Quintilian’s Institutiones (M2 books in a not
very large volume’) (of both these works he had only part), Donatus’s
Commentary on Terence , and Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah from
book 7 on (he will have known from Cassiodorus, De institutione
divinarum litterarum 3, PL 70.114, that the work consisted of 20 books,
and he had only six of them). It does not follow that these books were
available in the papal library; indeed in the case of Jerome’s
Commentary on Jeremiah Lupus will probably have been unlucky: all
MSS now surviving are incomplete, and it may be that the author never
completed it (Kelly, Jerome 317, 327). But the request does show what
resources an educated Frank might expect to find available in 9th-
century Rome.

Benedict’s last dated act was on 30 March 858 when he granted the
use of the pallium to Vitalis, patriarch of Grado (J2672), just as he had
received it from Leo IV, to be used when celebrating mass for the rest
of his life. On the same day Louis II issued at Rome a diploma for the
abbey of Nonantola. The next LP life shows that when Benedict died
(10 April) Louis had already left Rome and had to return urgently.
Although neither the LP nor AB mentions it, Bertolini 1966:336
supposes that there must have been a final solemn meeting between
Benedict and Louis at St Peter’s, given that Easter fell on 3 April. One
of the deacons who carried Benedict’s remains from the Lateran to St
Peter’s was Nicholas, his main friend and confidant, and his successor.
Though his pontificate lasted only 30 months (which a later tradition
would reduce to find space after Leo IV for Pope Joan), the surviving
evidence is enough to show that it was no mere interregnum between
the pontificates of Leo IV and Nicholas.

106. BENEDICT III

167

106. 1. BENEDICT [III; 29 September 855 - 10 April 858], of
Roman origin, son of Peter, held the see 2 years 6 months 10 days. 1
This blessed man, sprung from loving flesh and blood, was fortified
with astral dew; and growing speedily in the study of divine letters, he
was given over to his father’s discretion to be trained. As a sponge
quickly soaks in water, so he learnt the lessons of the sacred volumes;
he understood, grasped and set the rudiments in the foundation of his
mind, and propagated them on unseen roots. His fame becoming
celebrated and widespread, he was brought to the Lateran patriarchate
and placed among the clergy. He was prudent in speech, distinguished
in doctrine, sober in behaviour, peaceful in conversation, sympathetic to
all, accommodating to everyone, and very kind. 2. When bountiful
pope Gregory [IV] saw that he was an expert and useful teacher, he
made him a subdeacon in the holy Roman church; and in this order he
entered upon many struggles in the holy life: for he overcame the flesh,
and the prince of the world and all his wicked arguments. 2 So the
prelate Gregory died and departed to the Lord; Sergius [II] took on the
government of the Roman church as bishop; and on his death Leo [IV]
took on the apostolic see. This pope loved him exceedingly for his most
happy acts, and spurred by the Will from on high he consecrated him
with great honour as priest for Callistus’s titulus . 3 * 3. His blessedness
shone and flowered forth far and wide, so much so that he was reckoned
most blessed in all he said and did. In him God’s wisdom was
acknowledged to dwell openly, because he warmed everyone and

1 The tenure is one day shorter in E 6 , one day longer in the Montecassino catalogue, 2
years 7 months 6 days in Paris 5140. Benedict Ill’s dates are not totally certain; his letters
run from 7 October 855 to 30 March 858. It seems there was a vacancy of at least two
months after 17 July 855; the possibilities for his ordination are 22 or 29 September or
6 October. His successor was ordained 24 April 858 (though 1 May is not quite
impossible). Vogel (in Duchesne III) insists that Benedict’s dates were 6 October 855 to
17 April 858, against Duchesne’s dates (given in the text) which Bertolini 1966:332
accepts. For what it is worth, E 6 gives a vacancy of 15 days in 858; if this is not a late
medieval calculation, it supports Duchesne’s chronology.

2 A similar eulogy recurs in c. 20 (for similar ‘doubled’ eulogies see 105:18 and 107:10).
The laudatory view of Benedict is confirmed, perhaps, by Photius (Liber de Spiritus Sancti
mystagogia 88, PG 102.377-8 (‘he was gentle and meek, famed for his ascetic struggles’).
Photius could see Benedict as an ally, as Benedict did not accept Ignatius’s deposition of
Gregory of Syracuse; he also believed that Leo IV initiated, and Benedict III continued,
the recitation of the Byzantine creed in Greek at Rome, but that it was stopped by a later
pope. Photius approved of Benedict; but it is incredible that he would need inspiration,
or be willing to borrow ideas, from a work like the LP to express his (rather conventional)
view, as Baix 1935:17 thought.

3 Benedict signed as priest of St Callistus’s titulus at the council of 853, when Anastasius

was finally deposed (105:92; Mansi 14.1021).

168

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

adorned them clearer than light with his bounteous and pure affections;
he spumed the delights of this failing and transitory world and to the
poor and needy he disbursed whatever they could use. He continued
valiant in fasting and assiduous in prayer; every day he remained
vigilant in God’s praises.

4. The prelate Leo was taken from this world and died. Then all the
clergy of this God-protected Roman see and all the dignitaries and the
whole senate and people gathered to implore the Lord’s clemency, that
he would see fit to point out to them all a beatific shepherd who could
rule the pinnacle of the apostolate with serenity; they were then
inflamed by God’s ethereal light and with one consent and effort they
promulgated his election as pontiff because of the great sacred works in
which he was accomplished. 4 5. Immediately with keen and general
endeavour the plebs and the assembly of the people made their way to
Callistus’s titulus and found him pouring forth prayer, as was his wont,
to God almighty. He rose, saw the dense throngs of people, and realized
and grasped the situation in his mind. At this he knelt weeping greatly,
and with tear-choked voice he implored them all, saying: T beg you not
to take me away from my church, because 1 am not capable of
sustaining and bearing the load of so great a pinnacle’. But they refused
to agree; instead they took him forcibly from that titulus with hymns
and spiritual chants, and with full rejoicing and ineffable gladness
brought him to the Lateran patriarchate and placed him on the pontifical
throne as is the usage of the pontiffs and as hoary custom points out.
Moreover 5 the city is glad, the church leaps for joy, the elderly rejoice,
virgins in triumph sing God’s praises, the poor are enriched, the needy
prosper, captives are comforted, the maimed rise up, and the sick are
healed and gather swift of foot, because the sadness that was widespread

4 According to 108:3 the electorate’s first choice was the priest of St Mark’s, the future
Hadrian 11. In view of what follows in cc. 6fT it is unlikely that there was unanimity in
favour of Benedict: it is admitted in c. 9 that Anastasius had significant support, and it is
certain that he, not Hadrian, was the main challenger. Hadrian and another future pope,
Nicholas, may well have been influential at this stage; Hadrian had been a priest since 842
and so was senior to the more recently ordained Benedict. Nicholas had only recently
reached the diaconate; Nicholas’s father Theodore was a regionarius , and Hadrian’s family
had already produced two popes, Stephen IV and Sergius II. If Hadrian’s life is right to
claim he had support, could he perhaps have stepped down in favour not of Benedict but
of Anastasius? And could he have done so knowing whom Louis II wanted as pope?
Bertolini (1966) thinks he would have known of this; though he also believes that the city
clergy (presumably with Hadrian among them) were loyal to Benedict. Perhaps so, but
there were certainly priests (one even named Hadrian) whom Leo had deposed who sided
with Anastasius (see c. 14 and n. 30). On relations between Hadrian and Anastasius see
also life 108.

5 Very similar expressions recur at 107:7, no doubt from the same author.

106. BENEDICT III

169

among them was observed confounded, and flourishing calm was seen
raised up.

6. This done, the clergy and all the dignitaries composed the decree,
signed it by their own hands and, as ancient custom requires, 6
despatched it to the emperors Lothar and Louis. 7 The envoys who took
this decree, Nicholas bishop of Anagni and Mercurius the master of the
soldiers, 8 met bishop Arsenius 9 at Gubbio 10 and they engaged in

6 In 844 Lothar had insisted on the terms of the Constitutio of 824 being recognized (104
n. 22): an imperial warrant was needed before the pope could be ordained, and the
ceremony was to take place in the presence of the imperial envoys. Leo IV had accepted
this (see p. 101). The oath of loyalty to Benedict (mentioned in c. 9; and cf. p. 36) will
have been taken at this point; the envoys would break it by going over to Anastasius.
‘Ancient custom’ here must reflect a feeling that the sending of an electoral announcement
to the western emperors was a continuity of practice with the Byzantine period; which is
why this passage was quoted by Guy of OsnabrUck, Liber de controversy inter
Hildebrandum et Heinricum imperatorem {MGH libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum
saec. XI et XII conscripti 1.465.15-18).

7 The election decree will have been composed in the latter part of July, and was
therefore addressed to both emperors. Lothar died 29 September 855 (the same day, it
seems, as Benedict’s ordination) at the monastery of PrUm in the Ardennes, to which he
had gone when he abdicated on 23 September. Even when he wrote the first chapters of
this life the writer is not yet likely to have known of these events.

8 Nicholas and Mercurius represent the clerical and lay aristocracy respectively; Nicholas
signed at the council of 853 (Mansi 14.1020).

9 Arsenius, bishop of Orte 855-868, had been very important at Rome since the time of
Leo IV (see p. 74) as the imperial envoy and able to dispose of Louis II’s favour and
influence. Cf. 107:63; 108:43 (his death in 868); and Schieffer 1980:1054-5. He was
either the father or the uncle of Anastasius. Bertolini 1966:331, Amaldi 1961:25, and
Petrucci 1962:339, maintain the common view that Arsenius was Anastasius’s maternal
uncle; so too Kelly, Nelson. This view depends entirely on a letter of late 867 by
Anastasius to Ado archbishop of Vienne in which Anastasius apparently so describes
himself, MGH Ep 7.401.17ff. Bertolini holds that Arsenius was father of Anastasius; so
too Lapotre 1885:29 and Baix 1935:15. At least one word is missing in the text of
Anastasius’s letter to Ado; Bertolini restores: Pendet autem anima eius (Hadrian II) ex
anima avunculi mei, vestri vero <aequivoci , et> Arsenii. Bertolini’s text makes the uncle
of Anastasius not Arsenius but a homonym of archbishop Ado; and this Ado will be the
‘priest named Ado, a kinsman of his’ mentioned at the Roman Council of 12 October 868,
held by Hadrian II against Anastasius (AB 868 Nelson 149). Lapotre, already seeing that
the text of the letter was at fault, read: avunculi vestri, mei vero patris Arsenii , which
would make Anastasius a relative of Ado of Vienne. Amaldi, agreeing that the priest Ado
related to Anastasius was not the archbishop, but holding the view that Anastasius was
nephew of Arsenius, also made him the half-brother rather than full-brother of Eleutherius:
Arsenius would then be Anastasius’s stepfather as well as his uncle. This seems to get the
best of both worlds. But Hincmar (AB 868 Nelson 145) describes Eleutherius as son of
Arsenius and as brother of Anastasius. This is surely conclusive; there is no need to posit
half-relationships.

10 Despite the use of the ablative for the locative (usual enough at this date) and the
inversion of the names of the place and the bishop (typical of the author’s style), Gubbio
is where Arsenius met the Roman envoys, not (pace DHGE 4.752) his episcopal see; cf.
next chapter, and Lapotre 1885:62. Deusdedit (1.208), basing his comments about these
events on the LP, was right to state that Arsenius was bishop of Orte. At the council of

170

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

discussion with each other. He buttered them with cunning words, their
hearts began to soften and they veered from their loyalty to the elected
blessed Benedict. With them he endeavoured to firm up a plot for them
to adorn Anastasius with the badge of the pontificate, a man deposed
and anathematized, something God’s clemency would never tolerate. 11

7. So they went and gave the decree to the kind Caesar Louis, and
returned to Rome with the duplicitous intention that they had in mind.
Reporting that the imperial envoys 12 would be arriving, they presented
the letters containing the emperor’s reply to the remarkable man elected.
In their dreadful scheming, in their desire to achieve the plot which, as
we have mentioned, they had entered into with Arsenius at Gubbio, they
said to all the clergy and to the State’s assemblies: ‘You must all
endeavour to go out along with us to meet the imperial envoys so you
can be obedient to the emperor’s mandates.’

8. Some days later the envoys whose arrival they had heralded made
their way to Orte, 40 miles from Rome. Among them were counts
Adalbert 13 and Bernard; they entered it, and, impelled by bishop
Arsenius, joined themselves to that priest named Anastasius, the one
previously condemned: 14 in the holy synod under the presidency of
prelate Leo of blessed memory, he had been, in accordance with the
promulgations of the sacred canons, lawfully excommunicated, deposed
and bound by an anathema. Not having God before their eyes, like
bloodstained tyrants they wanted to confound his commandments, and
were considering how to raise up this ejected and anathematized
Anastasius to the apostolic pinnacle, contrary to the tradition and
enactments of all the prelates and beloved men. 9. The envoys too -
those we mentioned above, bishop Nicholas and Mercurius the master
of the soldiers, who had delivered our decree about the election of the
kind Benedict to the emperor - with the plan drawn up and thought out
in their minds, left Rome with some other nobles, Gregory and
Christopher masters of the soldiers, and set out as if to meet the
emperor’s envoys. They made their way to the city of Orte, and, making

8 December 853 one Erfo was bishop of Gubbio (Mansi 14.1020, with loannes in the
margin).

11 For Anastasius’s earlier career see pp. 104-6. After his deposition he had found
protection with Louis II. Nicholas, Mercurius and Arsenius represent an important faction,
whose opportunity to substitute Anastasius arises from the fact that Benedict, though
elected, could not be ordained until imperial approval arrived.

12 In their presence it would be permissible to ordain the new pope.

13 Despite Duchesne’s caution this must be the same man as count Adalbert, marcensis
et tutor in 846, 104:44 with n. 80.

14 Cf. 105:92.

106. BENEDICT III

171

little of and forgetting the oath of loyalty they had taken to the
bounteous elected Benedict, they joined themselves to the condemned
and deposed priest. Given this opportunity, many others from the City
rose up and did the same, as that utterance of the prophet has it,
‘devising mischief that could not succeed’. Leaving the city of Orte they
arrived close to St Leucius the martyr’s basilica, 15 behaving insolently
and glorying in the weapons and power of men; with them were
Radoald bishop of Porto and Agatho bishop of the city of Todi. 16 These
had left Rome secretly, enmeshed themselves in black gloom, and joined
the one who was anathematized, with their senses, minds and souls
darkened.

10 . When God’s servant the elected Benedict heard this, he
endeavoured to despatch George and Maio, 17 bishops who were
venerable, wise and full of all knowledge, with some letters to the
imperial envoys. On the advice of the anathematized priest Anastasius
they arrested them, tied them up and put them under guard, an action
against envoys unheard of even among barbarian races and peoples.
Afterwards Christ’s minister the elected Benedict sent the remarkable
Hadrian, secundicerius of the holy apostolic see, and the duke Gregory,
to meet them. 11 . Next day, employing a falsehood, 18 they ordered all
the clergy, the entire senate and the whole people, ‘on the emperor’s
mandates’ 19 to go over the Milvian Bridge to meet them. All the
Romans then went along with this, ignorant of the trick and deceit, and
leaving the City with one accord they crossed the Milvian Bridge.

As they made their way to the above-mentioned martyr’s basilica, the
envoys we have already mentioned above, with that deposed and
anathematized Anastasius, met the bishops and clergy and dignitaries of
the Roman people, and together with them they made their way on
horseback by the Campus Neronis 20 to the walls of the City, and also
brought Hadrian, the remarkable secundicerius we have mentioned
above, hedged round with guards. 21 Arresting Gratian, the superista of

13 At Tor di Quinto, not far from the Milvian Bridge, cf. 97:77 with n. 160.

16 Both these bishops signed at the council of 853 (Mansi 14.1020). On Radoald see
Lapdtre 1885:74f.

17 George was bishop of Bomarzo, Maio of Privemo (between Frosinone and Terracina);
both signed at the council of 853 (Mansi 14.1020).

18 The ‘falsehood’ is what they pretended was in the emperor’s mandates.

19 The expression is a quasi-quotation, in view of ‘not ordered in a mandate’ below.

20 Cf. 104:47.

21 Hadrian’s companion duke Gregory is not mentioned; Bertolini 1966:331 plausibly
supposes that he had gone over to Anastasius’s side.

172

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the sacred patriarchate, 22 and Theodore the scriniarius , they
held them bound, with spears drawn. This was something the emperors
had certainly not ordered in a mandate, nor had they expressed it as
their intention; it was the unhappy presumption of the deposed priest
that brought it about. 12. With Caesar’s envoys this priest entered the
Leonine city 23 by force and, making little of God’s will, he suddenly
and boldly intruded into the prince of the apostles’ basilica, which he
ought not to have entered. The extent and nature of the evil and hapless
activities he carried out were such as even the Saracen horde had not
presumed or thought to carry out therein: he broke the images and burnt
them with fire, he destroyed the painting of the synod which pope Leo
of blessed memory had had made above the sanctuary’s doors, and with
a hatchet he hurled down to the ground the icon of our Lord Jesus
Christ and his ever-virgin mother. 24 This he should not have done; at
that detestable action all the devotees of the orthodox faith 25 wept and
groaned, and were filled with sadness and sorrow. 26

13. This done, the deposed priest entered Rome as an enemy 27 and
with his wicked followers swiftly made his way to the Lateran
patriarchate; and like a bloodstained tyrant he opened its doors with
worldly force and many kinds of weapons, and so entering by this door
he sat on the throne which his hands should not even have touched. He

22 On Gratian see 105:110-112 with n. 159 on his post as superista.

2 * Completed three years previously, 105:68-74.

24 What was destroyed was an image of Christ and the Virgin amidst a series of
inscriptions recording the sentences pronounced against Anastasius on 16 December 850,
29 May and 19 June 853, and 8 December 853, above the main door of St Peter’s. Leo
IV had certainly given great prominence to his condemnation of Anastasius. The latter’s
apparent iconoclasm was not for theological motives. In destroying the pictorial and
textual record of his own condemnation he may well have caused more damage than was
necessary, and the LP naturally presents this in the worst possible light. In view of what
the Saracens had recently done to the tomb of St Peter itself, to describe Anastasius’s
behaviour as worse than that of the Saracens is hyperbolic.

25 A reminiscence, though perhaps unconscious, of orthodoxis... fidei cultoribus in the
Canon of the Roman Mass.

2( ' Cf. AB 868 Nelson 148 (Hadrian IPs version of these events): After Leo’s death
‘Anastasius, anathematized and deposed, returned with the backing of worldly power’ (i.e.
with Louis IPs help), ‘from the secret places in which like a thief he had been skulking.
Seduced by diabolical trickery and caught in a fog, in the manner of a brigand he invaded
this church which he ought not to have entered at all, and like a savage and a barbarian,
to the perdition of his own soul and the danger of this venerable synod, along with his
most villainous accomplices and followers he destroyed and threw down that picture in
the dust. The most blessed and distinguished Pope Benedict restored and decorated it with
colours flowing with light.’

27 Or ‘with a hostile force’, though this would merely anticipate the reference to his
supporters in the next words.

106. BENEDICT III

173

gave orders to the bishop of Bagnor6gio, whose name, inappropriately,
was Romanus, 28 whom he saw to be clouded with a bestial mentality,
to eject blessed Benedict, whom as we have related the whole Roman
people had elected, from the pontifical throne on which he sat. Like a
barbarian 29 he took him and stripped him of the pontifical vestments he
was wearing, and sated him with many injuries and blows. 14. Then
the deposed Anastasius, acting for man, not God, endeavoured to give
this kind elected Benedict over to guards who would strictly confine
him, that is, to the former priests John and Hadrian whom the prelate
Leo had condemned for their crimes and deposed from every sacerdotal
office. 30 Then the entire people were filled with wailing and plentiful
weeping, and lay quivering and groaning deeply. Immediately all the
bishops and clergy and God’s people entered the holy of holies, 31
beating their breasts with copious tears, and lay prostrate on the ground
between the vestibule and the altar, 32 begging God’s greatness to deliver
them by his victorious right hand 33 from the gloom of their great error.
Saturday was then taking its course. 34

15. Next day 35 these bishops with all the clergy and people gathered
in Aemiliana’s titulus , 36 at which those envoys of the emperor had

28 He cannot have been bishop long; the council of 8 December 853 was attended by
bishop Leo of Balnor6gio. The signatures of the 20 priests then present included two
named Romanus (one was the archpriest, at St Pudentiana’s, the other priest of SS John
and Paul; Mansi 14.1020-1); one of these was perhaps the new bishop.

29 As opposed to a Roman.

30 At the council of 853 were two priests named John (of St Chrysogonus’s; and of St
Prisca’s) and two named Hadrian (of St Mark’s, the future Hadrian II; and of St Vitalis’s)
(Mansi 14.1021); if any of these are to be identified with those mentioned here, their
depositions must have occurred in the 19 months following the council. The future
Hadrian II can be safely excluded; even if his sympathy lay with the imperial party (cf.
n. 4), we would certainly have heard of it if he had been deposed.

31 As a scriptural and liturgical expression, ‘Holy of Holies’ must be taken figuratively
(so too ‘between the vestibule and the altar’ just below), and not as a reference to the
oratory of St Laurence in the Lateran Palace (the later Sancta Sanctorum at the top of the
Scala Sancta ). This was too small to hold an assembly of the size implied, and it is likely
that Benedict’s partisans had been ejected from the whole Lateran complex. They might
however have gathered in the adjacent basilica, to which as the cathedral of Rome the
term ‘Holy of Holies’ might be appropriate.

32 Joel 2.17; cf. previous note.

33 Cf. perhaps Wisdom 10.20 (the introit for Easter Thursday).

34 Eight days before Benedict’s consecration, so probably 21 September.

35 i.e. on Sunday. Adalbert and Bernard are anxious in cc. 15-16 to bring the matter to
a conclusion by having Anastasius accepted as pope and ordained on the only day the
ceremony could by custom take place (for this, 108:9).

36 SS Quattro Coronati, situated not far from the Lateran; cf. 98:73 with n. 129. This is
the last reference to the church under its ancient name; but see Krautheimer, Corpus 4.32-
3 for the lingering doubt that even at this date there might have been a titulus Aemilianae

174

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

arrived, roaring and swollen with pride. Launching an attack like savage
lions they sprang up to the apse where the bishops sat chanting with the
clergy, and they attempted to shatter them with staves raised aloft and
to injure them with swords, saying: ‘Agree and give your consent to
Anastasius’s taking over the pinnacle of the pontificate’. But they, filled
with the Holy Ghost, asserted: ‘We can never agree to one who has
been deposed and bound by an anathema by a holy prelate and a blessed
synod - we cast him out utterly and exclude him from God’s
assemblies’. Then in fury they said they would punish them with blows
and torments; but almighty God’s blessed bishops and those with them
made little of their terrors and threats and remained unmoved. 16.
These Franks 37 saw they were steadfast, and filled with anger departed
from them and went into some chamber in that basilica. There they
considered various plots; and into it they also brought under compulsion
the bishops of Ostia and Albano, 38 whom they strove to reduce by mild
language and persuasive flattery and later enveloped with threats of
violence. They even said to them in sharp tones: ‘There is no way for
you to keep your lives - you will be subject to a capital penalty unless
you give Anastasius the grace of consecration’. But they affirmed they
would give themselves over to die and to be tom limb from limb sooner
than bestow the blessing of consecration on one who was deposed and
condemned by an anathema. They convinced those envoys and proved
all their replies from holy scripture, that there was no way they could
set that deposed man in the order they were demanding. Straightaway
they held a secret discussion in their own tongue; and the fury that
overflowed in them began to wane and seemed removed from their
minds.

17. When Tuesday dawned, 39 all the bishops with the clergy and

surviving separately from SS Quattro.

37 By describing the envoys as Franks (and then by remarking on ‘their own language 1
in this chapter) the compiler is persisting with the idea implied by his mention of
Anastasius’s partisan Romanus being un-Roman (Bertolini 1966:332); Anastasius’s
behaviour, too, has been described as barbarous (c. 13). In the LP account the violence
is blamed on Anastasius and on the imperial envoys, but never on Louis himself. Yet the
envoys cannot have been pursuing a policy unwanted by Louis who, at a politically
difficult time, with his father about to abdicate and with his own rule in practice confined
to Italy, will have wanted a pope he could trust, Anastasius, and not Benedict, linked as
the latter was with Leo IV who had deposed Anastasius.

38 The bishops of Ostia, Porto and Albano were the usual consecrators of the pope (cf.
108:9 with n. 22); since Radoald of Porto was already on Anastasius’s side it remained
to bring round his two colleagues, Megistus of Ostia (so named at the council of 853,
Mansi 14.1020) and Petronacius of Albano.

39 This chapter seems to describe what was in effect a fresh election, in which Benedict
was again the victor. Whatever might be said about the regularity of the previous election,

106. BENEDICT III

175

people gathered in the Saviour’s basilica called Constantinian, in which
all the plebs and the multitude of the people shouted aloud: ‘We want
the blessed Benedict as pope - it is he we insist on!’ The envoys heard
this and were surprised. 40 Seeing that no ingenuity would make Christ’s
unity and beloved concord turn to Anastasius, they summoned the
bishops and the other sacerdotes with the clergy fo one of the chambers
in the patriarchate, and they endeavoured to sort out the whole conflict
with them. But with plausible words and teaching they overcame the
audacity of these envoys, so that the hapless thought in their minds was
obviously broken and confused. Realizing this, they said to the
venerable bishops: ‘Take the one you have elected and bring him to any
basilica you wish; then we will cast Anastasius, whom you call deposed,
out of this patriarchate; and let us for three days solemnize a fast with
prayer, and then let whatever is indicated by the Clemency from on high
be fulfilled’. But the bountiful bishops cried: ‘Let the intruder, the
deposed Anastasius, be cast out of our presence and expelled from this
patriarchate, and then we will do what you suggest’.

18. Immediately Anastasius was cast out and expelled from the
patriarchate in much disgrace, so that all the devotees of the orthodox
faith 41 fulfilled their manifold thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ. The
bishops with all the clergy and people took and brought the elected 42
one, blessed Benedict, from the basilica 43 in which the clerics were
staying, the same place where the savage Anastasius had put him under
guard. With every enthusiasm and rejoicing they went down with him
to the Saviour’s basilica, called Constantinian. Going out from there, in
triumph they set him on the horse on which the prelate Leo used to sit.
With a great band of the people going before him they brought him to
God’s mother’s basilica called Praesepe; and in it they gave themselves
over for three days and nights to fasting and prayer, beseeching the
Lord’s majesty with many tears.

19. When the fasting was over, all 44 who had joined themselves to the
anathematized and deposed one, spurred by God’s will and inflamed by

the imperial envoys would now witness an election whose regularity they could not doubt.
Perhaps the envoys allowed this to cover their own surrender?

40 The compiler presents this popular demand as the turning point, cf. n. 45.

41 Again (as in c. 12, cf. n. 25) the phraseology reflects the liturgy.

42 Reading (so too Vogel in Duchesne III) elec turn for eiectum.

43 Duchesne took this to be one of the inner basilicas of the Lateran Palace, probably the
present Sancta Sanctorum , cf. n. 31; and Baix 1935:16 stated it as fact. But we are not
told where the ex-priests John and Hadrian (c. 14) had confined Benedict; it may not even
have been in the Lateran.

44 Except Radoald, see below.

176

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

God’s favour, came with one accord to the same basilica in which, as
we have said, the elected blessed Benedict was residing, and falling
down they began to kiss his footprints. And they said to him: 4 We have
strayed and departed from you with unsure step, but like a holy
shepherd receive the flocks of sheep that stray through the meadows,
gather the tired Iambs to your bosom, and overshadow us with your
wings’. Straightaway the God-protected Benedict thirsted to embrace
them all with outstretched arms, pure mind and kind heart, and he
adorned them with kisses. He said to them: ‘Rejoice, dearly beloved,
and be yet more glad, because Christ God’s Son has seen fit by his
power to unite the Church that was tom’. He said and preached these
and like things, and even the imperial envoys gathered there as well, for
they were holding secret discussions in wholesome and milder language
with the one elected. 45 20. But suddenly all the bishops and the whole
clergy and the countless multitude of the Roman people took him from
that basilica. With hymns and spiritual chants they brought him to the
Lateran patriarchate and set him on the pontifical throne from which he
had been removed. Then the whole church rejoiced and all the people
resoundingly expressed their gladness.

So when Sunday dawned, he was brought by all the bishops, clergy
and dignitaries to St Peter the apostle’s basilica, and in the sight of all,
with the imperial envoys looking on, he was consecrated and ordained

45 The compiler is silent on the details of the envoys’ negotiations with Benedict. On the
one hand it was now clear both to Benedict and the envoys that Benedict had support
from a majority of clergy and people who would not brook Anastasius as pope. The
envoys would have to accept this, however grudgingly, and let Benedict’s ordination
proceed. On the other hand they could not give in too easily; they would have to explain
themselves to Louis. Anastasius was ejected from the Lateran. That was inevitable.
Benedict also restored the painting and inscriptions at St Peter’s ( AB , quoted in n. 26). In
all other respects he showed a surprising leniency, which can only be explained as part
of a deal he struck with the envoys who would otherwise still not have accepted him as
pope (Bertolini 1966:333). Hincmar alone (and he was no friend of Benedict’s) records
Hadrian Il’s statement when deposing Anastasius in 868 that Benedict made Anastasius
appear at a council (perhaps on or soon after the day of his ordination), upheld his
deposition and stripped him of the sacerdotal vestments he had uncanonically assumed,
but readmitted him to lay communion {AB 868 Nelson 148). So Anastasius’s attempt at
the papacy had left him with a lesser penalty than his existing excommunication. As a
layman he could be a monk (he was for a time confined to the monastery of S. Maria
Trastevere) and his lay state would not prevent him becoming an abbot. Furthermore
Benedict had to accept what must have been particularly galling: oversight by Arsenius,
Anastasius’s father (or uncle) and staunchest supporter, as imperial envoy (he reappears
at 107:63), and, still, as bishop of Orte. Another supporter, Radoald, remained bishop of
Porto, even if (c. 20) he did not take his usual place in the ordination ceremony. So while
the deal presented to Louis was a superficial reverse it was not a total climbdown;
Benedict would be compelled to toe the imperial line as much as Anastasius would have
done. The compiler’s reticence on all this may be due to ignorance, or discretion, or
hostility to Anastasius: he may have preferred to omit Benedict’s bargain as unsatisfactory.

106. BENEDICT III

177

pontiff for the apostolic see, as is the custom and as ancient tradition
requires. But the bishop of Porto 46 was excluded from the church, and
he never poured forth the prayer on him which he ought to have done,
because he had joined himself to the anathematized one, and had fallen
into perjury’s abyss and was still there. Then the sacred ceremonies of
mass were celebrated, and, ordained, he returned in glory to the
pontifical Lateran patriarchate.

He was 47 gentle, and adorned with every sacred work, fair of face and
bright of mind, sweet in conversation and kind-hearted in his teaching.
But as we are not capable of giving an orderly account of everything,
let us endeavour to make our pen stretch to what he presented to the
various places of the saints.

[October A. D. 855:]

21. At the very start of his pontificate, boiling with love from on
high, in the Saviour’s basilica called Constantinian he provided an icon
of wondrous beauty of the Redeemer our Lord Jesus Christ himself,
trampling the lion and the serpent under foot, of fine silver swathed in
gold, weighing 16 ! /2lb. In God’s holy mother the ever-virgin our lady’s
basilica called Praesepe he presented 1 gold and most precious crown,
weighing 4 lb. In this basilica the baptistery 48 had remained roofless for
a long time; with swift endeavour, hoping for future reward from the
Lord, he restored it and saw to its being brought to its ancient condition.
22. In St Peter the apostle’s basilica this remarkable and blessed pope
presented a chased incense-boat of fine silver and swathed in gold, in
which incense is put; there too he presented 7 candelabra 49 with horns,
of fine silver resplendent with golden colour, weighing 40 lb. In the
world’s teacher St Paul the apostle’s basilica, he decorated the tomb,
which had been destroyed by the Saracens, with silver panels weighing
104 lb. In God’s holy mother’s basilica Trastevere he presented 1 cloth
with all-silk decoration round it, with a gold-studded cross in the

46 Radoald (named in c. 9) is presented as disqualified through his adherence to
Anastasius. The LP may be disingenuous; there seems no reason why, in view of the deal
Struck (previous note), he should have been disqualified. He may have refused to take
part. Later he would be involved in further misdeeds (cf. life 107).

47 For the repeated eulogy cf. c. 1 with n. 2.

48 The first reference since the 5th century to this baptistery, which dated from the
building of the basilica under Xystus III (432-440): LP 46:3 (BP 36) records that pope’s
gift of a silver water-pouring stag at the font and all the sacred silver vessels for baptism,
and, 46:7 (BP 37), ‘he built the font of the Baptistery at St Mary’s and adorned it with
porphyry columns’. The exact location of the baptistery is not known.

49 ‘7’ seems to be the number of candelabra, not the number of ‘horns’ (i.e. not a single
7-branched candlestick); ‘horns’ are evidently the projections which earlier compilers
would have described as ‘dolphins’ and which held the wicks.

178

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

middle. In God’s holy mother’s basilica called Antiqua , 50 which pope
Leo had constructed 51 close to the Via Sacra from its foundations, he

50 The word Antiqua may confuse; the building is that now known as S. Maria Nova, or
more commonly S. Francesca Romana. As is clear from c. 24 this is on a different site
from the ruin now known as S. Maria Antiqua. This was discovered in 1900 in the so-
called Library of Augustus on the south side of the Forum (Rushforth 1902:1-123); when
it was abandoned, perhaps as a result of the earthquake of 847, its name (Antiqua),
privileges, properties, and icon, were transferred to the new building, which was legally
the same entity. The name Antiqua was not intended to contrast it with Leo IV’s building;
it had been in use since at least 640 (its use for a church then less than 100 years old (c.
565-578) is puzzling: Krautheimer, Corpus 2.266, thinks that the term may once have
referred to the icon). Not surprisingly, Leo’s building came to be called Nova as well as
Antiqua (107:37), then Nova only, and finally S. Francesca Romana. But though the
church took its name from a building on another site, it may not have been the first
church on the new site, which may have been that of pope Paul’s church of SS Peter &
Paul on the Via Sacra near the Temple of Rome, where the apostolic kneeprint-stone was
to be seen. The stone was on the Via Sacra at least from the 6th century; by 1375 it was
in front of S. Maria Nova, later inside it. No church of Peter and Paul near here is known
in any document after the 8th century, not even in the list of 807 (the church of St Peter
in the Einsiedeln Itinerary, between the Palatium Neronis and the Arch of Titus, will be
S. Pietro in Vincoli). If it nevertheless survived into the 9th century it may have been
destroyed by the earthquake of 847, and Leo IV may have used the site for a replacement
of S. Maria Antiqua. Lanciani, HUlsen and Prandi offered various views connecting SS
Peter & Paul with parts of the site, and even parts of the structure, of S. Maria Nova. The
competing suggestion for the location of SS Peter & Paul’s is based on the discovery,
when the Basilica of Constantine was cleared in the early 19th century, of the remnants
of some Christian murals and of an altar in the apse; De Rossi therefore located SS Peter
& Paul’s in this apse. The virtual destruction of the Basilica of Constantine in the
earthquake of 1349 would then be the occasion when the kneeprint-stone was placed
outside S. Maria Nova. See Krautheimer, Corpus 1.222.

51 It is surprising that Leo IV’s new building is not mentioned in his own life, but the LP
again credits him with the work at 107:37. The surviving medieval church has much in
the aisles and nave walls that dates from Leo’s building: the following summary is based
on Krautheimer, Corpus 1.228-243. The church was built so that the western half of the
nave overlay the Via Sacra, while the apse, to the east, intrudes into the double podium
of the Temple of Venus & Rome. Most of the features recall the basilicas of Leo III and
Paschal: the plan has characteristic carelessness: the aisles differ in width, and the sum of
the aisle-widths does not equal the nave-width; there is no clear ratio between the height
and width of the aisles or nave to each other. The distances between columns and between
windows, and the measurement of the windows, vary arbitrarily. The brickwork of the
walls is irregular. The brickwork of the clerestory with its small windows recalls S.
Cecilia, S. Prassede and S. Martino, which all also have the double arches over the
windows, typical of 9th-century Rome. The architrave, instead of an arcade, here, at S.
Prassede, and at S. Stefano degli Abessini, is also common in the 9th century, as is the
use of ‘Servian’ blocks in the foundations of the south-west comer of the facade and the
south of the nave. The shortening of the south aisle is influenced by the location of the
church in the Forum, but it would not have occurred earlier, even though, as it is a
deaconry, anomalies can be tolerated (cf. S. Giorgio in Velabro). Construction-technique
is consistent with a completion date under Leo IV. The masonry has many more marble
fragments than at SS Nereo e Achilleo or S. Prassede, and even than the recent S.
Martino; the north aisle is of more careless masonry than the nave, and, apparently, than
the short south aisle: a different crew of masons may have built it slightly later. All these
irregularities show that it is a latecomer in the 9th-century revival of the early Christian
basilica.

106. BENEDICT III

179

provided 13 gold-interwoven veils 52 with a purple fringe. In St Laurence
the martyr’s basilica outside the city’s walls he presented and granted
golden keys.

[January A.D. 856:]

23. So in the 5th month 53 after this distinguished pontiffs
consecration, i. e. in January, on the ..th day, the river called Tiber left
its channel and spread over the plains; it swelled in great spate and
entered the city of Rome by the postern-gate called St Agatha’s, at the
..th hour of the day. Meanwhile in some places it even lapped over, 54
and entered the church of St Silvester, 55 so that of the steps which go
up to St Dionysius’s basilica 56 none except the topmost was visible

52 Without manuscript support Kxautheimer has 14 veils, and observes that there were
probably seven columns each side of the nave (Corpus 1.223, 235).

53 The month stated is a problem; for the date of Benedict’s ordination see n. 1; the fifth
month should begin 29 January 856 (or 6 February 856); yet the flood was on 6 January.
Vogel therefore corrected to ‘in the 4th month’. But if 29 September is correct for
Benedict’s ordination and the reckoning is in full calendar months, September is the first
and January is, as required, the fifth. Or perhaps the compiler meant to write ‘in the fifth
month of the indiction-year’. Alternatively the figure ‘5th’ may have originated as the
(missing) day of the month in the next line, if the flood began the day before Epiphany
(mentioned below). On the whole this passage supports 29 September rather than 6
October for Benedict’s ordination.

54 91:6 (the source of this passage) adds ‘the city walls’; the compiler was careless.

55 The text may be at fault here; Duchesne would substitute ‘monastery’ for ‘church’. Cf.
107:15, which is based on this passage. Perhaps expand here to read, as there, ‘and
entered St Laurence’s church called Lucina’s; from there it extended itself and entered St
Silvester’s monastery’. Either solution will considerably ease the following problem (cf.
Krautheimer, Corpus 4.150,160; Duchesne 1900:317). SS Stephen & Silvester’s monastery
(now S. Silvestro in Capite) was founded by pope Paul (95:5), whose life clearly
distinguishes two separate sanctuaries, an upper oratory with the relics of popes Stephen
and Silvester, and a church of great beauty within the monastery. At 98:38 the ‘larger
basilica’ and ‘the oratory’ are also distinguished. At 107:14 the ‘larger church’ is again
mentioned, and as dedicated to St Dionysius. The present passage is the first to mention
St Dionysius’s at this complex. The text here as it stands suggests that St Silvester’s was
the lower church and that from it steps led up to the oratory of St Dionysius. But it would
be extraordinary if the church which did not contain St Silvester’s body was the one
which bore his name; and St Dionysius’s must have been a spacious and easily accessible
building, since there was a large gathering in it to elect pope Nicholas (107:6). Also it
would be odd to measure the height of a flood by a chapel hidden away inside a
monastery: the steps of St Dionysius’s surely rose from the street itself. St Dionysius’s
must have been the name, at least by Benedict Ill’s time, of the present S. Silvestro in
capite, and the oratoiy on the monastery’s upper floor must be St Silvester’s (and/or St
Stephen’s). Nothing is known about the form or the precise location of the latter, or when
the relics of Stephen and Silvester were deposited in it.

56 The present S. Silvestro in capite (see previous note). The shift of the main basilica’s
dedication from Dionysius to Silvester occurred about the 11th century; the term De
Capite is first used in 1194, because the reputed skull of St John the Baptist was brought
from Constantinople to this monastery under Innocent II (1130-1143). The earlier
dedication was to Dionysius, the pope who died 26 December 267. Loenertz 1948:118ff
identified the patron correctly; that it was Denis of Paris was based, as he showed, on the

180

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

because of the flooding; 57 from there it expanded over the street called
Via Lata and entered God’s mother St Mary’s basilica there, and the
water swelled so much that this church’s doors could not even be seen
because of the flooding. 58 Then it went up through the streets and by¬
ways as far as the Clivus Argentarius. 59 From there it turned a right
angle and entered by the portico 60 in front of St Mark’s church, on the
6th day of the same month, the Apparition of our Lord Jesus Christ
according to the flesh, i. e. God’s Epiphany. Then it made a rush and

imagination of Hilduin, abbot of St Denis, who claimed, c. 835, that Stephen II (Paul’s
brother) had brought relics from France in 754; by c. 1000 Benedict of Soracte could state
that Stephen II founded the church to St Denis (with SS Eleutherius and Rusticus)
(HUlsen, Chiese , 466; Krautheimer, Corpus 4.161). Pope Dionysius’s remains were taken
from S. Callisto by Paul, and it is his feastday, 27 December, that is on the inscription at
S. Silvestro (which does not name Denis of Paris; that it does not have Stephen or
Silvester either will be because their relics were in the oratory, not this basilica). The
present 16th/17th-century church has few visible remains of the 8th-century church of St
Dionysius. This (Krautheimer, Corpus 4.151-161) was a simple basilica, with a nave about
10 m wide, aisles about 5 m wide, and some 33 m long. The excavation of a new open
confessio in 1906-8 revealed portions of the older church, including the foundation walls
of the nave colonnades, the northern end-walls of both aisles, and the outer wall of the
east aisle; in 1962 ‘Servian’ blocks were found in the foundations of the south-east comer.

57 In the 8th century the door-lintel of St Mary’s deaconry in Via Lata, which the flood
also reached (next note), was c. 2.50 m below the present street. But the original
pavement of S. Silvestro was only 0.90 to 1 m below the present nave and street level.
So the top of the steps mentioned here in the LP would have been 1.4 to 1.5 m below this
level. It follows that the steps mentioned did not reach the church itself, but only came
to an intermediate level somewhere between the nave and the travertine pavement which
marks the ancient street level, buried 4.00 m below the Piazza S. Silvestro. And such an
intermediate level is known: a stretch of marble pavement was seen in front of the
forecourt at a depth of 2.4 m, i.e. 1.6 m above the ancient pavement and exactly at the
level of the door-lintel at S. Maria in Via Lata. This pavement was 3.20 m wide, and may
have been a porch or a landing; there would have been 10 or 11 steps up to it from the
original pavement, then 9 or 10 steps up to the atrium and the church (Krautheimer,
Corpus 4.137-8). The LP’s ‘topmost step’ must refer to this landing.

58 That both now and (107:15) on 30 October 860 the floods were deep enough to
submerge the doorway of S. Maria in Via Lata proves that this building was much lower
than the present church, built 1491-1506 to replace one constructed in 1049. The church
before that date is to be identified with the remains of a group of six vaulted chambers
under the present church. See 98:45 with n. 102.

59 This is the earliest occurrence of this name, found in other medieval documents for the
road which corresponded closely with the Via di Marforio until this was swallowed up by
the north-western end of the Via dei Fori Imperial'!. Under the Republic the street seems
to have been called Lautumiae, but Platner & Ashby, 121-2, suggested that the name
Clivus Argentarius was in use under the Empire, and derived from the shops of the
argentarii (see further Platner & Ashby, 76, Basilica Argentaria). The street was the only
link between the Forum and the Campus Martius before the imperiat fora were built. It
left the Forum between the Curia (S. Adriano) and the Career, and ran along the eastern
slope of the Capitoline Hill.

60 Or the ‘narthex’ of St Mark’s (Krautheimer, Corpus 2.217). But the passage seems to
be based on the account of the flood in 791 which spread beyond St Mark’s after turning
a right angle by the Portico named Pallacinis (97:94).

106. BENEDICT III

181

began to run down into the sewer close to the monastery 61 of St
Silvester and of St Laurence the martyr’s called Pallacinis. From that
day and thereafter the water gradually began to diminish, and after
doing much damage the river returned to its channel: it overturned
houses, desolated fields, sweeping crops away and uprooting trees.
[A.D. 855-6:]

24. This done, the same blessed pope, constrained by great love,
provided on the high altar in God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our
lady’s church in Trastevere 1 gold-studded cloth, representing God’s
mother’s assumption. In Christ’s martyr St Anastasius’s monastery 62
called Aqua Salvia he presented 1 Saxon bowl of fine silver weighing
3 lb. In God’s holy mother’s basilica formerly called Antiqua but now 63
located close to the Via Sacra he provided 1 gold-studded cloth
representing the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. In
St Vitus the martyr’s monastery 64 he provided 2 six-light canisters of
fine silver weighing 4'/2lb. 25. In St Cyriac the martyr’s church 65 on the
Via Ostiensis the venerable and distinguished pontiff provided 1 gold-
interwoven cloth. In St Felix the martyr’s church 66 in Pincis he provided
1 gold-interwoven cloth with griffins. In St Chrysogonus the martyr’s

61 If one monastery is meant (rather than both St Silvester’s and St Laurence’s),
‘Silvester’ may be an error for ‘Stephen’ (so Duchesne): St Laurence’s had been united
with St Stephen Vagauda (97:71). However, the title SS Stephen & Laurence is not used
elsewhere for this monastery, Ferrari, 94.

62 Cf. 103:28, and especially 97:91 with n. 189.

63 Cf. c. 22 and nn. 50-1. When S. Maria Nova was still thought to be on the same site
as S. Maria Antiqua, Duchesne 1897:27-30 wanted to insert nova dicitur quae (cf.
107:37). But once the original S. Maria Antiqua was found in 1900, the implication of the
manuscript text that there was a move was confirmed. The LP is asserting the legal
identity of the church on the new site with that on the old. Even after 1900 some still
thought there were two churches of the same name simultaneously during part of the 9th
century, and that the definite transfer of the title of the church from S. Maria Antiqua to
S. Maria Nova occurred only in the 10th century (cf. Krautheimer, Corpus 1.223). This
is as unnecessary as it is improbable.

64 On the problems of identifying the various locations dedicated to St Vitus in Rome see
98:78 with n. 151. Duchesne (1.481) was probably wrong to identify the monastery with
the deaconry described as in Macello or on the Esquiline. The monastery was that called
de Sardas , with an oratory dedicated to St Vitus; it may not have been far from the
deaconry. Vitus himself was a genuine martyr in Lucania whose cult spread to Rome at
least by the 7th century (Gelasian Sacramentary). It is possible that one at least (but
which?) of the institutions dedicated to him in Rome was earlier than this. Gregory I ( Ep .
1.46; ed. A/G//I.72), writing to Theodorus duke of Sardinia mentions a monastery of St
Vitus which one Vitula had founded; and writing (Ep. 14.16; MGH 11.435) to Leo bishop
of Catana he mentions a monastery of St Vitus set on Mt Etna. Is the first of these in
Rome? Or does Gregory refer twice to the latter?

65 Cf. 98:109 with n. 195.

66 Cf. 97:50 with n. 80.

182

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

titulus 61 the noteworthy prelate provided 5 fine silver chalices, weighing
in all 2 lb Vi oz. In Callistus’s titulus he provided 1 fine silver ama
weighing 11 lb; there too he provided 4 bowls weighing 9!4 lb; also 9
canisters weighing in all 11 lb. For this church’s praise and glory he
provided 1 gospel-book sheathed in silver and gold, weighing 15 lb;
there too he provided 1 crown, 1 canister, a fine silver arch with 2
chevrons, weighing in all 40 lb. In St Balbina the martyr’s 68 church he
presented a fine silver gospel-book. 26. In the world’s teacher St Paul
the apostle’s basilica he provided 1 gold-studded cloth, beautifully
adorned on a wondrous scale. In St Peter the prince of the apostles his
mentor’s church, burning with great love he provided a fine gold cover
weighing 3 lb, to cover the navel 69 of the confessio. In the monastery 70
of Christ’s martyrs SS Sergius and Bacchus called Callinicum he
provided 2 fine silver chalices and 1 paten, 1 colander, 1 incense-boat,
1 censer, weighing in all 4 lb.

[A.D. 856-7:]

This remarkable and blessed pontiff, setting the gaze of his mind on
a lofty footing and loving nothing whose end was earthly, delighted
only in spiritual and wholesome works, and every day he kept his
distinguished glance fixed on everything that brought salvation. 27.
Adorned with these sacred benefits, he presented to the prince of the
apostles and the doorkeeper of heaven 1 cloth of wondrous beauty, of
gold-wrought work and shining splendour, with the bountiful
representation of the annunciation, and the hypapante , and how God’s
only-begotten Son himself entered the temple and sat among the
teachers. 71 In St Paul the noteworthy preacher and apostle’s basilica this
blessed prelate, inflamed with great love and relying on God’s support,
provided a spanoclist crown of fine gold with its chains, with a gold
cross in the middle; also a spaniscus which hangs permanently over his
altar, weighing 2 lb 1 oz; in the same basilica he presented 1 fine silver
incense-boat weighing 9 oz.

67 This is the last reference to the old basilica of St Chrysogonus; the next reference is
to the new basilica in 1123, on a much higher level, as at present; cf. 92:8.

68 The last reference to this church until 1489. Balbina was not in fact a martyr but the
founder of the titulus (cf. 98:73 with n. 128).

69 The Latin billicum is for umbilicum and refers to the vertical shaft connecting the
confessio with the underground tomb-chamber. The shaft is that in which the ‘apostolic
thuribles’ were suspended, cf. 100 n. 16 etc.

70 Not the same monastery as SS Sergius & Bacchus’s at the Lateran; cf. 98:78 with n.
149.

71 The three representations are from Luke 1.26-38 (the annunciation), Luke 2.22-39 (the
presentation or purification; Candlemas), and Luke 2.47, respectively.

106. BENEDICT III

183

28. This remarkable and blessed pope provided 7 silver crosses; 72
from ancient times they customarily went in procession through all the
catholic churches, and had been broken owing to their great age; this
distinguished and holy prelate restored them afresh and again raised
them up to their ancient condition; they weigh in all 5V/2 lb.

In Christ’s martyr St Sebastian’s basilica at Frascati this noteworthy
father presented 1 gold-interwoven cloth with a cross with chevrons of
fourfold weave in the middle. In 73 St Paul the noteworthy preacher and
apostle’s basilica he provided 1 rhodian red cloth with gold studding. In
St Cyriac the martyr’s titulus 14 he provided 1 gold-interwoven cloth.
29. In St Peter the apostle his mentor’s basilica this blessed pontiff,
boiling with love, provided 1 silver light of wondrous size, weighing ..
lb .. oz. In St Laurence the deacon’s church outside the walls of this
city of Rome, this blessed pontiff, filled by God’s inspiration, provided
1 gold-interwoven cloth with gold studding, adorned with wondrous
beauty.

Shining with light, he renewed the roofing of St Peter the apostle his
mentor’s distinguished church, that is the great vault 75 and the other
vault which is over his body, by inserting 7 great beams, raised up with
defiant ingenuity.

In St Cyriac the martyr’s titulus he presented 1 gospel-book of fine
silver, to that church’s praise and glory.

72 These are the seven stational crosses which served to indicate the starting point and
then as standards for the Roman people when they came from each of the seven regions
to stationes or other solemn gatherings. They are mentioned in the Ordines Romani from
the late 8th century on: Ordo 15 § 12 (Andrieu 3.97) begins an account of the papal mass:
‘Firstly the seven crosses proceed with psalm-singing and they come to the church where
the statio has been announced’. This section of Ordo 15 is based on Ordo 1 § 24, but the
seven crosses are not in the earlier text as such; this does however refer (in its longer
recension) to ‘the others who carry crosses’ (Andrieu 2.74). See also Andrieu 3.70-72 n.
2. Other ordines of the ninth century mention the seven crosses. In describing the Major
Litany on 25 April, Ordo 21 § 10 (Andrieu 3.248) states ‘the poor come from the
xenodochium with a wooden painted cross, crying Kyrie eleison... and after them come
forth the seven stational crosses, carried by staurophori , with three lighted candles on
each; then follow the bishops, priests, subdeacons, then the pontiff. Also at Candlemas
on 2 February, according to Ordo 20 § 7 (Andrieu 3.236), ‘there come forth the seven
stational crosses, (each) carried by a staurophorus , then the priests...’. These crosses or
their predecessors may have been those borne in front of exarchs and emperors visiting
Rome (97:36-37; 104:9). They were usually kept in St Anastasia’s church (Duchesne
1887:402, 411). In the 12th century there were 12 crosses for 12 regions.

73 MS E 6 omits all from this point to the end of c. 30, but after c. 32 it inserts an
expanded version of the end of c. 30; see n. 79.

74 Not the church mentioned in c. 25, but, as at 100:28, the titulus in Rome.

75 For this use of navis cf. 98:3. The great vault is the ceiling of the nave; at St Peter’s
this was significantly higher than that of the transept over the confessio.

184

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

[A.D. 857-8:]

30. This done, the same blessed pope, constrained by great love, in
God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary our lady’s church in Trastevere,
raised up this church’s great apse which was in ruins to a better
condition, freshly building it and from its foundations; 76 he decorated
the windows 77 with coloured glass and adorned it with a depiction in
mosaic; and he freshly renewed the portico and baptistery 78 with the
secretarium , all of them and the roofing in every case. St Mark the
confessor and pontiffs cemetery outside the Appian Gate was then in
ruins; he entirely restored it. At SS Peter and Marcellinus the martyrs’
church 79 the roof was ancient and close to ruin; he newly restored the
roof itself by taking down the most ancient beams and substituting
others, and also renewed all the surrounding porticoes.

31. In the oft-mentioned world’s noteworthy teacher St Paul the
apostle’s basilica, this holy bishop the prelate Benedict with great love

76 See the comment in n. 89 on 105:60.

77 It is unclear whether the windows are those of the apse or of the church (Krautheimer,
Corpus 3.66).

78 This is the earliest reference to a baptistery at this church.

79 MS E 6 (cf. n. 73) has the following corresponding to the end of c. 30:

Since I am bringing this blessed prelate's sacred acts to mind, I am renewed with
eagerness and the more compelled to tell his remarkable and happy solicitudes; he
worked with the cares of God and with dutiful concern. For when, relying on the
gaze from on high, he was continually touring round the saints' churches and
beatific cemeteries while chanting songs in which he poured out prayers with copious
tears to almighty God for the flock entrusted to him from heaven, that cleansed from
all guilt it might remain signed by the holy name, he made his way to SS Peter and
Marcellinus the martyrs' basilica in Merulana. He found this weakened with age and
broken in ruin, covered in brambles and filled with thorns, so that no entry was
available into it. Renewing its foundations with very solid construction, he restored
it, improving on its former condition; now the people make their way into it and the
full complement converges to praise God's name. Meanwhile he was led by the Holy
Ghost to St Mark the confessor and pontiffs cemetery, reckoned as located between
the Via Appia and the Via Ardeatina, and he discovered it damaged and broken in
many ruins. With great solicitude he rescued it and wonderfully constructed and
adorned it; he instituted and restored the mystery of God's worship which had
departed from it for long periods of time.

If this is trustworthy, the basilica of Marcellinus and Peter in the main text is that on
the Via Merulana within Rome, not the Constantinian cemeterial-basilica on the Via
Labicana. Deichmann and Tschira 1957:80 note that the latter had lost most of its relics
in and since 827 (cf. 103 n. 14, 105 n. 60). It was certainly not well guarded, and the
transfer of relics suggests that it was gradually abandoned; at some later date a medieval
cemetery was established among the nave foundations, Krautheimer, Corpus 2.203. So it
is unlikely that Benedict III would have bothered to restore it. Krautheimer, Corpus 2.194,
infers that Deichmann and Tschira assume the present passage relates to the Via Merulana
church, and he too (2.203) thinks that ‘surrounding porticoes' would better fit this church,
whether the expression means the aisles and narthex enveloping the nave, or aisles and
ambulatory, or even the porticoes of an enclosure.

106. BENEDICT III

185

ordered the making of a net of beautiful splendour, of wondrous
workmanship, all with jewels and albaverae and gold pommels, and
containing enclosed enamelled pieces of gold, that is 21 large ones and
the same number of small ones, and also 11 gold almonds and 10
hanging gold-studded jewels; he presented it, and ordered it to hang
permanently over the most holy altar in the apostle’s honour.

32. As a capable servant of Christ and as one who with pure heart
unceasingly bore the great care of the holy church, he was spurred on
by the ethereal Will; he saw that the holy church had suffered the theft
or loss of the cover of that volume in which the readings of Paul the
apostle’s true preaching, and the epistles of the other apostles and of the
prophets, are set out in order, readings which the subdeacons, aloft at
the ambo, regularly read at all the stationes of the churches. Great
concern seized him firmly, and he endeavoured to prepare another such
volume similarly worthy of it; and he ordered that there be added in it
the Greek and Latin readings 80 which the subdeacons regularly read on
the Holy Saturday of Easter and on the Saturday of Pentecost.
Decorating it with silver panels of wondrous workmanship, he freely
presented it to the holy Roman church.

33. In his time Michael, 81 emperor of the city of Constantinople, son

80 The Roman sacramentaries and lectionaries preserve no trace of Greek lessons on these
days. But for the Easter Vigil Ordo Romanus 23 § 26 (Andrieu III.272, MS of 9th
century) implies at least one lesson in Greek, and Ordo 30B §§ 39, 41 (Andrieu III.472,
late 8th-century MS) assumes that all the lessons, chants and prayers were read first in
Greek and then in Latin. The appendix to Ordo 28 (Andrieu III.412-13, MS of 2nd half
of 9th century) has the same instruction for all four lessons and chants. Andrieu 111.272
n. 26 thinks the practice was introduced in the Byzantine period. Perhaps Benedict was
attempting to resuscitate a largely moribund custom.

81 Michael III was nominally emperor from 30 January 842 when his father Theophilus
died; he reached his majority in 854. This sending of gifts is connected with the patriarch
Ignatius’s deposition of the Sicilian bishops Gregory, Eulampius and Peter; for the
involvement of Leo IV see p. 108, for that of Benedict p. 164. The present passage is the
only allusion to the affair in the LP. Thirty years later Stylian, metropolitan of
Neocaesarea, wrote to Stephen V that after his deposition and the anathema Ignatius
pronounced against him, Gregory Asbestas sent letters and messages to pope Leo asking
for help. Leo wrote to Ignatius requiring him to send an envoy to Rome, through whom
Leo might judge the cause of the schismatics. Ignatius immediately sent the monk and
confessor Lazarus who knew all about Gregory’s case and explained it very carefully to
the pope, who confirmed Ignatius’s sentence against the schismatics. Then after Leo’s
death, these again importuned pope Benedict who followed his predecessor and kept to
Ignatius’s judgment against them (Mansi 16.427-8). Stylian was Ignatius’s contemporary,
but also a devoted partisan, and his version is none too accurate; but he at least confirms
that the envoy sent by Ignatius in response to Leo’s request was Lazarus. The LP is likely
to be right that it was to Benedict that Lazarus presented Michael’s gifts, even if it fails
to mention the real reason why Lazarus had been sent to Rome; Stylian is wrong to state
that Leo confirmed the sentence (nor did Benedict do this), but he may be right to imply
that Lazarus was at any rate given his mission before Leo’s death and Benedict’s

186

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

of the emperor Theophilus, for love of the apostles sent a gift to St
Peter the apostle by the hand of the monk Lazarus - he was very well
trained in the painter’s skill, though he was a Khazar by race. The gift
was 1 fine gold gospel-book, with various precious stones; a chalice of
gold, surrounded with stones; a hanging net adorned with wondrous
beauty with precious jewels, pearls; 2 all-silk veils with all-silk crosses
and also gold-studded edging as 82 small covers for that chalice, as is the
custom of the Greeks; 1 cloth of fine imperial purple, over the high
altar, with representation all over it, lattice-work and roses of gold-
studding, decorated with great beauty; also 1 cross-adorned silk veil,
with a gold-studded cross; and gold Greek letters. 83

34. In his time the king of the Saxons named ... 84 came for the sake
of prayer; he left all that he had, lost 85 his own kingdom, and made his

accession were known at Constantinople.

82 The veils seem to be the covers, rather than separate items.

83 I punctuate the last clause differently from Duchesne since Bertolini 1966:335 takes
the passage to mean, surely rightly, that Lazarus brought from Michael a letter in Greek,
made out in gold.

84 The West Saxon king whose name caused our compiler problems was /Ethelwulf (839-
858); his visit was important for relations beween England and the papacy, not least in
financial terms. He had originally planned to go to Rome in 839 (Nelson AB p. 42 with
n. 4), but it was only in the time of Leo IV that he left England, passed through France
and was welcomed honourably by Charles the Bald (AB 855 Nelson 80, placed before
Benedict’s succession to Leo), and, accompanied by his son Alfred (the Great), reached
Rome. If Asser is to be believed, Ethelwulf had already sent Alfred to Rome in 853 when
only five years old, and Leo IV had treated him as a king’s son and made him a Roman
consul (but see the comments in Keynes & Lapidge 1983:234 n.24). /Ethelwulf now spent
an entire year in Rome (Asser c. 11, in Keynes & Lapidge 69-70). Unless this is a slip
and refers to the whole time the king was actually away from Britain, a year in Rome will
have included the death of Leo and the accession of Benedict. The king’s return through
France is datable from the fact that in July 856 he was betrothed to Charles’s daughter
Judith. On 1 October 856 at the palace of Verberie he married her; Hincmar of Rheims
crowned her, and /Ethelwulf formally gave her the title of queen; he then sailed back with
his bride to his kingdom in Britain (AB 856 Nelson 83). It is clear, at any rate, that the
king’s visit to Rome did not take place late in Benedict’s pontificate as the LP seems to
imply. Equally the LP is wrong to state (end of c. 34) that /Ethelwulf died a few days
after his return, though, curiously, this event did occur in the same year that Benedict’s
pontificate ended. AB 858 Nelson 86 has the death of ^Ethelwulf and Judith’s marriage
to his son, her step-son, yEthelbald. Asser c. 16 (Keynes & Lapidge 72) has /Ethelwulf
live two years after his return from Rome; he died 13 January 858 (‘Florence’ of
Worcester), and was buried at Steyning in Sussex prior to reinterment at Winchester
(Keynes & Lapidge 237 n. 38). So the chronological place of this chapter in the LP is
odd. It may be governed by the end of the chapter, the reference to the king’s death; or
maybe the LP’s date is influenced by the fact that Rome profited from /Ethelwulf s wilt?
The compiler was probably as ill-informed on the chronology of /Ethelwulf s travels as
he was on his name; and this chapter, like c. 33, may be an afterthought placed by the
compiler at the end of the register extracts.

85 amisit\ as it stands this is apparently false. Keynes & Lapidge 1983:235 n. 26, think
that it is a garbled reference to measures taken by /Ethelwulf before he left England, or

106. BENEDICT III

187

way to the homes of Peter and Paul the apostles in Rome with a
multitude of people. To St Peter the apostle he presented 86 a fine gold
crown weighing 4 lb; 2 fine gold beakers weighing .. lb; 1 sword, bound
with fine gold; 2 small images of fine gold; 4 silver-gilt Saxon bowls;
1 all-silk tunic with gold-studding; 1 all-silk white shirt with roundels,
with gold-studding; 2 large gold-interwoven veils. When the holy lord
pope Benedict requested this king of the Saxons to make 87 a public
dispensation of money in St Peter the apostle’s church from the weight
of gold or silver pounds, he gave gold to the bishops, priests, deacons
and all the clergy and the leading men of Rome, while to the people he
gave a small amount 88 of silver. Afterwards, when the prayer for which
he had come was finished, he returned to his own kingdom. A few days
later his life came to an end and he went to the Lord. 89

35. Much concerning himself with all God’s churches, and ever
rejoicing with his mind’s dutiful affection and endeavour at their repair,
he provided and renewed with wondrous work, in the basilica of the
kingdom of heaven’s keybearer his mentor, the silver chandelier
previously stolen by the Saracens; it rests on four legs, and in it on
feastdays and Sundays a lantern and a candle are placed together, close
to the lectern, for that basilica’s splendour, and it weighs .. lb.

Indeed, he was always intent on loving God’s worship, he loved
peace, and with a pure character he was a devotee of all heavenly

to developments while he was absent and after he returned. Before his departure {id. 235
n. 27) he seems to have divided his realm between his two eldest surviving sons
/Ethelbald and ^Ethelbert (Asser calls the former king; the latter signs as king and the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reckons his reign from 855). When /Ethelwulf returned from
Rome, /Tthelbald tried to stop him regaining his kingdom (Asser c. 12). On Aithelwulf
and his kingdom cf. Stafford 1990:149-150.

86 The terms for some of the gifts are unusual; see glossary on beaker, tunic, shirt.

87 facias, either in error for faciat , or a reflexion of direct speech.

88 Or perhaps ‘a mite of silver’, with minutum as a coin, as in Vulgate Luke 12.59. This
was not the end of Aithelwulf s contributions. Not only did he complete the repair of the
Schola Saxonum, destroyed by fire in 847 (cf. 105:20), but he was asked by Benedict to
institute a fixed contribution charged to his kingdom’s treasury in favour of the Roman
church. Asser c. 16 (Keynes & Lapidge, 73) states that before dying /Ethelwulf laid down,
for his soul’s sake, that every year there should be sent to Rome 300 mancuses (see 104
n. 78), to be divided three ways: ‘in honour of St Peter, especially for the purchase of oil
with which all the lamps in that apostolic church were to be filled on Easter eve, and
likewise at cockcrow... in honour of St Paul, on the same terms, for the purchase of oil
for filling the lamps in the church of St Paul the Apostle on Easter eve and at cockcrow...’
and for the pope himself. Ina of Wessex (689-726) and Offa of Mercia (in 794; 365
mancuses) had already set precedents for Peter’s Pence, but Keynes & Lapidge, 237 n.
37 and 268 n. 206, deny that even /£thelwulf s arrangement was the origin of this system;
they suggest that it began under Alfred in 886/7.

89 For the chronological problem see n. 84.

188

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

works. 36. He laid down that when a bishop, priest or deacon died, the
pontiff, with all the bishops, priests, deacons and other clerics should
come together to bury his body and commend his soul; they should do
the same when the pontiff departed this life; and he not only taught this
but did it. His successor followed his tracks and from his piety towards
him he imitated him like a devoted heir, just as in other matters as well.
He performed one December ordination, 6 priests, 1 deacon; for various
places 66 bishops. He was buried before the doors of St Peter’s. 90

90 The location was in the narthex, immediately to the right of the central door. The
epitaph was copied by Mallius (De Rossi, Inscr II p. 214), and alludes to the tomb’s
location very close to the main door: ‘You whoever hasten hither begging Christ for
pardon, I pray you, learn how this place is worthy of tears; lo, in this cold and quiet place
the prelate Benedict III encloses the limbs which the earth gave him; and as the roof
preserves the doors beneath a covering of stone, he decided that he was unworthy to be
in the company of the godly’.

189

107. NICHOLAS (858-867).

This life is a curious patchwork. It seems that it was first compiled
by a writer who followed his predecessors’ habits of describing the
background and ordination of the new pontiff (cc. 1-10) and then
resorting to the registers of donations and restorations to provide
material for the rest of the life. The result would have been very similar
to life 106: indeed, strong resemblances between the first sections of
lives 106 and 107 suggest a common author. But the text was then taken
over by a writer more concerned with political history. He interpolated
supplements into the lists of restorations and donations, at times even
sacrificing the earlier text (see c. 43); how much has been excised we
cannot know. The shifts of style are blatant, though the first insertion
(c. 19) begins with what might at first sight be taken for register
material. To the new compiler belong: cc. 19-20, 21-35, 38-42, part of
43, 44-50, 55-57, 58-63, 64, 68-76, perhaps 77-78, and, probably, part
of 83. What is left of the earlier text appears in 1-18, 36-37, part of 43,
51-54, 65-67, 79-82, and parts of 83. The additions (including 77-78)
make up about 60% of the extant text, and are marked off in the
translation by rows of asterisks.

Stylistic considerations strongly suggest that the additions are from
the hand that composed the following life, that of Hadrian II, the author
of which may be John the Deacon. Whoever the author, he displays
first-hand knowledge of events and was clearly well placed to use
important documentary material. The register of Nicholas’s
correspondence is specifically cited at c. 57; letters are referred to there
and at c. 77; and in a number of other places there are similarities
between the compiler’s phraseology and the wording used by Nicholas
in what now survives of his letters or the wording of conciliar material
likely to have been kept in the archive (cf. nn. 42, 59, 61, 63, 75-79,
82, 89, 94-5, 97-8, 102, 104, 129). It is fair to judge that the author has
used his material competently, yet his account of the history even from
a Roman perspective is incomplete. There is one glaring, and
significant, omission. Not a word is said about the emperor Louis II’s
expedition to Rome in the early months of 864 to avenge the deposition
of the archbishops of Cologne and Trier (who had supported king
Lothar’s divorce). This has in turn caused the omission of all the
subsequent story of the archbishops’ relations with Rome and, with it,
all further reference to the king’s divorce. The reason may be easily
suspected: the author is careful nowhere to offend Louis II. All fault
must lie at the door of the archbishops and of their allies Hagano bishop

190

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

of Bergamo, John archbishop of Ravenna, and the latter’s brother
Gregory.

We have much information on contemporary events from outside the
LP, most notably from the Annals of St Bert in, and the many surviving
letters from Nicholas’s own pen: these, including fragments but
excluding dubious and spurious items, are 153 in number and occupy
400 pages in the text edited by Perels for MGH Ep 6 (EKA 4). Such an
abundance of material can be used to flesh out the information in the
LP. It is the purpose of this introduction and of the notes to the
translation to do this.

Nicholas was a young man when he became pope; bom hardly earlier
than 820 (n. 4), he was still under fifty when he died. Undoubtedly his
election was assisted by the influence of Louis II. The setback to
imperial influence caused by Anastasius’s failure to obtain the papacy
in 855 was now removed, and Anastasius himself was rehabilitated, to
become the pope’s secretary, and his father Arsenius played a significant
part in papal diplomacy. How far Anastasius helped in policy decisions
is unknowable, but Nicholas was his own man and was to prove no
mere tool of Carolingian interests. He inherited and extended a high
view of his office; he was St Peter’s vicar and held power over the
whole church. Synods were to execute his own decisions. The secular
power had a duty to protect the church but no right to interfere in it; yet
the church had a duty to influence the state. It followed that archbishops
could not deny him the right to overrule their decisions, that kings were
not free to adapt the moral law to suit themselves, and that the
Byzantine emperor was not to decide for himself, with or without a
synod, the succession to the see of Constantinople. His enforcement of
these principles earned him respect, sometimes grudging, from his
contemporaries, but seldom affection.

These principles involved him in three important areas: relations with
the Carolingians (especially the affair of Lothar’s divorce, cc. 44-50);
conflict with bishops and church councils in the west, not merely in
connexion with Lothar’s divorce, but even in Italy (cc. 21-35, 43, 64);
and relations with the eastern church, especially over the questions of
the missions to Bulgaria and Photius’s right to the patriarchate of
Constantinople (cc. 18-20, 38-42, 68-76).

His belief both in the indissolubility of marriage and in his right to
judge cases involving princes brought Nicholas into conflict with Lothar
II. Lothar, in 860, divorced queen Theutberga; he had already taken a
mistress, Waldrada, and a synod at Aachen in 862 authorized him to
marry her. Theutberga had fled to her brother Hubert’s protection, and
appealed to Nicholas who willingly intervened. His legates attended a

107. NICHOLAS

191

synod at Metz in June 863. This recognized Lothar’s new marriage:
Nicholas suspected that his legates had been bribed, and it is likely
enough. When archbishops Theutgaud of Trier and Gunther of Cologne
brought the synod’s decision to Rome, Nicholas reacted by holding a
synod on 30 October to quash the synod of Metz and depose the two
archbishops and bishop Hagano who was also implicated.

Such a sentence against his archbishops offended Lothar, who
provoked the emperor Louis II into action, on the grounds that the
archbishops had gone to Rome under Louis’s guarantee; a punitive
expedition against Rome, which the LP ignores, was the result. Nicholas
was to be bludgeoned into reinstating Theutgaud and Gunther. Details
are given by Nicholas ( Ep . 53, J2886), and there are some points in
Erchampert’s History of the Lombards of Benevento , c. 37 (MGH SSrL
248, in the context of Louis ITs death in 875), and in the Libellus de
imperatoria potestate . But the best account by far is AB 864 Nelson
112-121. Louis II travelled with his wife Engelberga and with the
archbishops. Hearing this, the pope proclaimed a fast and litanies. Louis
arrived, and while he was close to St Peter’s his men laid into the litany
procession, broke its crosses and standards, and put it to flight ( 4 in this
tumult the wondrous and venerable cross, constructed most fittingly by
Helena of holy memory... was broken and thrown into the mud’).
Nicholas was at the Lateran; to avoid being taken prisoner he escaped
by boat on the Tiber to St Peter’s where he stayed two days fasting.
Louis caught fever, but sent his wife to Nicholas to give him a safe-
conduct. Nicholas came to Louis, and after discussions he returned to
the Lateran; Louis sent the archbishops back to France.

Gunther sent Nicholas, by his brother Hilduin, a letter he had already
sent to the bishops in Lothar’s realm; if Nicholas would not receive it,
Hilduin was to lay it on St Peter’s tomb. AB 864 Nelson 113-116 then
presents this manifesto, in which Gunther and Theutgaud give their
version of the events of the previous autumn (AF gives a less complete
but slightly better text, including the attribution of Nicholas’s anger to
Anastasius’s criminal teaching, cf. Nelson 113 n. 8, 114 n. 10). They
state that they had left Rome and had now been called back; they want
the other bishops to encourage Louis the German’s potential sympathy
to Lothar’s divorce. They had been sent by fellow bishops to Nicholas,
and had presented their document, expecting a reply. But after three
weeks they had been given nothing in writing, though Nicholas had
once said that their document implied they were excusable and innocent.
When called before Nicholas they had been condemned by a mob, not
a synod, so they had rejected this sentence, and hold Nicholas
excommunicated for his uncanonical and unprecedented behaviour. They

192

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

know they have supporters against Nicholas; Waldrada’s marriage to
Lothar is valid. Nicholas refused to receive this statement. Hilduin and
his men were impeded by the guards at St Peter’s, one of whom was
killed in the fracas, but they did put the document on St Peter’s tomb,
and returned to Gunther. A few days later Louis II left Rome, after
much pillage, and celebrated Easter (2 April) at Ravenna. On Good
Friday (31 March) Gunther reached Cologne and officiated liturgically
in spite of the papal ban (which Theutgaud obeyed).

Fragments survive of Nicholas’s letters at this time; in Ep. 24, J2766
Nicholas wrote (before he knew of Gunther’s celebration of Easter) to
drum up support from all the archbishops and bishops of the Gauls: ‘if
you are unanimous who can resist you? our fathers also resisted kings’;
the deposed bishops may communicate as laity, but not excite crowds,
stir up scandal, or function as bishops. That was what he had decreed
with the synod. On 30 March 864 Nicholas wrote (Ep. 25, J2755) to
Ado of Vienne urging him to recall Lothar to the right path. In May
(Ep. 66, J2756) Nicholas ordered Hincmar to shun communion with
Gunther who had dared to celebrate liturgically. In the summer Nicholas
replied to Louis the German (Ep. 26, J2758); he rebuked the king: true,
he had not consented to Lothar’s union with Waldrada, but he had failed
to condemn it; the pope wanted it made clear to all that Louis did not
agree with it; he was to avoid communion with Gunther, who had
usurped a banned ministry, and Theutgaud, and to order his men to do
the same. Nicholas said he would follow Gregory IV’s footsteps, and let
the bishop of Bremen be archbishop over the Danes and Swedes -
though the bishop should never have asked this from Gunther who had
no power to grant it.

In an attempt to conciliate Nicholas and to disavow the actions of
Hilduin in Rome, Lothar now deposed Gunther from Cologne, but
without consulting Nicholas he gave the see to his cousin Hugh. On
Nicholas’s orders, Gunther came to Rome (with the remnants of the
Cologne cathedral treasure); he wanted to explain Lothar’s case, and his
own, to Nicholas. Bishops from Lothar’s kingdom sent envoys to
Nicholas, with statements that they had erred about Waldrada. Lothar
had already sent Nicholas his own excuses for his conduct and expressed
his willingness to correct it (MGH Ep 6.217-19). But Nicholas did not
give in over the two archbishops. He sent further letters to all the
bishops in Gaul to confirm their deposition. In another letter (Ep. 29,
J2764 of mid-864) Nicholas explained to Rodulf archbishop of Bourges
and his suffragans why and on what authority Theutgaud and Gunther
had been condemned; under pain of excommunication they were not to
communicate with them, and they were to send legates to Rome about

107. NICHOLAS

193

1 November for a further council at which the archbishops could be
again condemned.

Nicholas sent letters of forgiveness to the other bishops of Lothar’s
realm who had agreed to Waldrada but had now admitted their mistake.
Two such letters survive: in Ep. 30, J2767, of 17 September 864,
Nicholas accepted the excuses of Franco bishop of Tongres for attending
‘the council of emptiness 5 (Metz), and forgave him; he praised him for
fleeing communion with Gunther, who was usurping a forbidden
ministry, and Theutgaud; he urged him to cure Lothar’s wound by his
advice, until he took back his wife, even if unwillingly. And in Ep. 31,
J2768, of the same date, Nicholas forgave Adventius bishop of Metz
(whose letter of excuse survives, MGH Ep 6.219-222, cf. Staubach
1982:196-7). We know also that at this time Nicholas wrote to Charles
the Bald and Louis the German to have them send their archbishops or
representative bishops to attend the forthcoming council in Rome;
Nicholas advised them to tell the bishops of Lothar’s kingdom about the
synod.

This synod met early in November to confirm the depositions and to
deal with the case of Lothar (and that of Ignatius). Gunther and
Theutgaud came to the synod, thinking that Louis IPs intervention
would gain their reinstatement. If AF 864 Reuter 51-2 is to be believed,
Gunther was repentant for his illicit liturgical activity, and, apparently
twice, came to Rome but failed to persuade Nicholas to forgive and
reinstate him. Nicholas sent Arsenius to Louis II to ask him to allow
Nicholas to send legates to Charles on church affairs. Louis refused,
thinking that Nicholas wanted to send legates to France with secret plans
against himself. On the death of her brother abbot Hubert, Theutberga
came to Charles for protection and was given the convent of Avenay
hear Rheims.

So despite his threats and his intervention at Rome, by the end of 864
Louis was forced to give way to Nicholas and let the sentence on the
archbishops stand. In February 865 Louis summoned a synod at Pavia,
which asked Nicholas to forgive the archbishops; Louis’s tone was very
different from the one he had used a year earlier (Nelson, AB , 123 n. 5;
Fuhrmann 1958:4-6; Hartmann 1989:284-5). But before pursuing
relations between Nicholas and the the Carolingians further there are
examples to be considered of Nicholas’s assertion of papal authority
over prelates other than Theutgaud and Gunther, and over church
councils other than that of Metz.

Nicholas had to assert his authority even in Italy. At Capua, bishop
Landulf deposed a deacon Pepo without due process (c. 43); the pope
had Pepo reinstated. At Piacenza (c. 64) a deacon Paul had usurped the

194

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

bishopric from Seuffed; Nicholas had Seufred restored and banned Paul
ever holding that bishopric. Far more difficult was the situation at
Ravenna, where the archbishops had long behaved with a measure of
independence that Nicholas could not tolerate. Archbishop John VIII
was particularly obnoxious, and had already clashed with Leo IV in 853;
his brother Gregory was Duke at a time when Ravenna had become a
virtually independent state. John made life difficult for his suffragan
bishops and interfered with Roman agents and property. To make
matters worse he refused to obey the pope’s summons to Rome.
Nicholas’s victory over him, his deposition and excommunication in
March 861, and his submission, oath of loyalty, and restoration the
following November, are fully covered by the LP (cc. 21-35). The effect
of John’s two defeats in one year was greatly to weaken his authority
over his suffragans and to strengthen their dependence on Rome (cf.
Ewig 1969:144).

In the Frankish kingdoms Nicholas rightly saw Hincmar of Rheims
(845-882) as the most powerful archbishop and the one most likely to
resent interference from Rome. Here the LP provides adequate
information on one aspect only (cc. 58-63), the affair of Rothad II,
deposed from his bishopric of Soissons by Hincmar and his suffragans
at a council in 862, and his appeal to Rome. Nicholas was particularly
concerned about his own right to review cases of deposed clergy who
appealed. He ordered the case to be reopened. In January 865 Rothad
was cleared, and Arsenius was sent to reinstate him (and dissolve
Lothar’s marriage). It was in the course of this incident that Nicholas
became the first pope to invoke the False Decretals, see n. 128. In its
account of the affair the LP introduces Hincmar at c. 58 with a phrase
which, as Duchesne remarked, shows a peculiar disdain. Hincmar was
well known at Rome, as were his see’s importance, his personal worth,
and his influence with king Charles and the bishops of the kingdom. But
the affair of Rothad caused tense relations between Hincmar and
Nicholas; the LP, breathing the same spirit as the pope’s letters, reflects
this. By a fortunate chance we have an account of the affair from the
other side in AB , penned at this stage by Hincmar himself.

There is more to be said about Hincmar’s dealings with Nicholas.
Relations could be merely intrusive, as when (Ep. 133, J2837) the pope
ordered Hincmar to tell his suffragan Hilmerad bishop of Amiens that
Nicholas had imposed penance on a man who had killed a priest and
monk. But even before the Rothad affair they had clashed. We know
from a letter of Hincmar {Ep. 169, MGH Ep 8.144) to the pope that
Nicholas, about September 863, had threatened to excommunicate him
if he were to find that Charles the Bald would fulfil his promise to the

107. NICHOLAS

195

papal envoys (Radoald and John) but then fail to receive Charles’s
daughter Judith and present her to her parents. At about the same date
Nicholas ( Ep . Ill, J2746) had attacked Hincmar for his attitude to
Robert bishop of Le Mans and for turning Charles’s mind against
Robert.

A separate issue between Nicholas and Lothar in which Nicholas
supported Hincmar’s rights was the case of Hilduin, the already-
mentioned brother of archbishop Gunther, and a cleric in the diocese of
Rheims (cf. Nelson, AB, 113 n. 7). In May 863 {Ep. 13, J2730)
Nicholas ordered the bishops in Lothar’s kingdom to persuade the king
to remove Hilduin from the see of Cambrai, which Lothar had conferred
on him when it had been without a bishop for ten months, and to let the
clergy and people elect a bishop canonically. Hilduin himself was
ordered {Ep. 14, J2732) under pain of anathema to abandon the see and
restore what he had stolen. And in Ep. 15, J2731, Nicholas blamed
Lothar for ignoring Hincmar’s jurisdiction by installing Hilduin at
Cambrai; he threatened penalties if Hilduin was not ejected and
Hincmar’s privileges were not respected.

Even after the Rothad affair, Nicholas and Hincmar were found on
opposite sides in another incident not mentioned in the LP, and this is
worth consideration for the light it throws on their relationship and for
its revival of the thorny problem of Ebbo’s ordinations (see 104:16). A
clerk named Wulfad, a favourite of Charles the Bald from the 850s, was
Charles’s choice for the see of Bourges in 866 on the death of Rodulf,
archbishop since 845. Bourges had to be in safe hands if Charles was
to control Aquitaine. Wulfad was elected, an election whose validity, at
this date, depended on his being a cleric and not a layman (cf. the case
of Photius). But, as AB (i.e. Hincmar) explains, Wulfad had been
ordained by Ebbo after Ebbo’s deposition from the see now held by
Hincmar. So Hincmar had a personal interest: if Ebbo’s ordinations
were valid, his own position at Rheims was in doubt; and at Soissons
in 853 he had deposed Wulfad and others ordained by Ebbo {AB 866,
Nelson 132-4 with nn. 14, 16, 19; AB 867 Nelson 138 with n. 3, 140
with n. 11, 141)

For his part, Nicholas had found Rodulf of Bourges obedient and
loyal to Rome; in 864 Nicholas had replied to his detailed inquiries on
matters of discipline and liturgy {Ep. 117 (864), J2765), and he would
no doubt wish to see the archbishopric stay in safe hands rather than
those of a man indebted to Hincmar; the pope’s interest therefore
coincided with the king’s. However, as the AB does not fail to mention,
Benedict III had upheld the council of Soissons which had deposed
Wulfad (Perels prints Benedict’s letter, J2664, in MGH Ep 6 as Nicholas

196

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Ep. 59a). What was more, Nicholas himself had at Hincmar’s request
confirmed the same synod (28 April 863, Ep. 59, J2720), at the same
time confirming Hincmar’s primacy, his pallium and other privileges for
the rest of his life, provided he never departed from the precepts of the
apostolic see.

By 3 April 866 {Ep. 74, J2802) Nicholas was urging Hincmar to
restore Wulfad and the others, or at least to convene at Soissons on 18
August with other archbishops and bishops, to deal with the case in a
new synod. Of course, if the clerics were to appeal to Rome against the
synod, Nicholas reserved judgment to himself; again we see him
unhappy at giving a church council the final say. On the same day {Ep.
75-6, J2803-4) Nicholas wrote to the archbishops of Tours and Vienne
and bade them attend at Soissons; and he apprised Wulfad of the
situation. Charles attended the synod in person; and it agreed that
Wulfad was validly ordained (canons of the councils of Nicaea (325)
and of Carthage (418) were cited), but that Nicholas would need to
change the sentence that he himself had confirmed. For fear of schism,
the synod decided to defer the question, merely sending letters (Mansi
15.728) to Nicholas. But Charles saw this outcome as unsatisfactory; he
requested Nicholas to let Wulfad be consecrated. On 29 August
Nicholas {Ep. 77, J2811) replied that he could not allow this until he
received the synod’s acts. Charles went to meet Lothar at Attigny, and
Theutberga was summoned there; she had permission to go to Rome.
They decided to send a joint embassy to Nicholas to deal with various
matters. Without waiting for a reply from Rome Charles had his son
Carloman install Wulfad at Bourges, illegally, as the AB states, and this
muddled the situation further.

Because of his personal interest Hincmar arranged for Charles’s
envoy, Eigil (who had presided at the recent council), to deal with
Nicholas when in Rome, and to take a letter with him {MGH Ep 8 nos.
185-8). Eigil delivered the letter to Nicholas, and on 6 December the
pope replied at length {Ep. 79, J2822). He recounted the whole story of
the deposed clerics at Rheims; he attacked Hincmar as guilty of various
faults. He praised the synod’s agreement to restore the clerics, but
blamed them for sending him only the letter and not the complete acts;
these he ordered to be sent. The clerics were to be reinstated if no real
objection could be alleged against them, though Hincmar was to have
a year to appeal about this to the apostolic see; even so, Wulfad should
not have been made a bishop in such haste. Nicholas wrote {Ep. 80,
J2823) to Hincmar on the same date, blaming him for not sending a
legate, but merely a letter, and that unsigned; he charged him with
misuse of evidence and canon law; and he took the opportunity to attack

107. NICHOLAS

197

him on other counts, such as his use of the pallium too frequently. The
same day, Nicholas ( Ep . 78, J2824) also thanked Charles for his zeal in
restoring the clerics and mentioned his letters to Hincmar. Yet another
letter (Ep. 81, J2825) contained Nicholas’s congratulations to Wulfad
and his restored colleagues - but they must treat Hincmar with due
honour and obedience.

Eigil returned to France with the letters from Rome, and on 20 May
867 was received by Charles at Samoussy. The letter to Hincmar must
have reached Rheims at much the same time; in Hincmar’s view the
pope had attributed false statements to him (his rebuttals of Nicholas’s
charges are MGH Ep 8 nos. 198-199). Acting on Nicholas’s authority,
Charles gave notice of a synod to be held at Troyes on 25 October 867
(Mansi 15.791-6). At this, some bishops wanted to curry favour with
Charles and, so AB claims, they worked for Wulfad against Hincmar.
Hincmar opposed their efforts and (according to Hincmar) the majority
prevailed, and sent Nicholas a letter in Hincmar’s support. But the
messenger handed the letter to Charles, who prepared a letter to
Nicholas against Hincmar, and both letters were sent to Rome. When
the envoys reached Rome they found Nicholas dying, but able to reply
that he would give Hincmar satisfaction on every point. With his need
to secure a united western front against the Greeks, Nicholas had no
choice but to accept a reconciliation with Hincmar, but face was saved
since Hincmar could no longer refuse to accept Wulfad’s consecration
as archbishop of Bourges as Nicholas and Charles required, while
Hincmar kept enough influence to see that problems over the clerics
ordained by Ebbo remained, and thereby asserted the legitimacy of his
position in Ebbo’s bishopric (cf. Nelson, AB , 140 n. 11, 141 nn. 3, 14).

Nicholas’s opposition to Hincmar then was in support of Charles; but
it is necessary to backtrack nearly three years and pursue other matters
concerning Nicholas and the Carolingians. AB 865 Nelson 122 reports
that Lothar had said he himself would go to Rome; but his uncles
Charles and Louis the German ordered him first to set his marriage
right. Lothar suspected that in his absence they would seize his
kingdom, so he asked his brother Louis II to get Nicholas to write to
Charles and Louis the German to keep the peace and not harm his
interests; Louis II persuaded Nicholas to do this.

In the early spring of 865 Nicholas sent Arsenius to Gaul; his tasks
were to achieve peace between the four kings, to deal with the matter
of Lothar’s divorce and the two deposed archbishops, to reinstate
Rothad of Soissons, to take a reply to the archbishop of Besan^on on
questions of marriage and clerical discipline (Ep. 123, J2787), and also
to deal with the case of Engeltrude (see c. 48 with n. 100; on Arsenius’s

198

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

mission, Dummler 1887-8:3.6; AF 865 Reuter 53-4). AB Nelson 123
comments on Nicholas’s threatening tone in his letters to Louis the
German and to Charles. The surviving relevant letters of Nicholas
carried by Arsenius are: Ep. 33, J2773, to Charles on the need for peace
between Louis II and Lothar. Ep. 34, J2774, to the episcopate in
Charles’s kingdom: they were to warn Charles to keep out of Louis’s
kingdom and remind him of the broken treaty with his brothers, so that
Louis II, who had his imperial crown from the pope, could govern his
hereditary realms, confirmed by the apostolic see (there were similar
letters to Louis the German and his bishops). Ep. 35, J2776, to the
archbishops in Lothar’s kingdom, blamed their sloth and their failure to
write; they were to persuade Lothar to cast off Waldrada, and he would
be excommunicated if he did not obey. Ep. 36, J2777 (fragment), to
Lothar, complained how the papal legates at Metz in 863 had been
corrupted to oppose rather than execute the mission they had been
given. Ep. 37, J2778, to Lothar, warned him of the excommunication if
he did not repent and obey before Arsenius had returned; Nicholas had
deferred the penalty only out of love for his brother Louis II (copies of
these letters were sent to Charles).

Charles and Louis the German were on such bad terms with Louis II
by now that they claimed to Nicholas that they could not let their
bishops go to a council at Rome to deal with Lothar’s marriage since
Louis II would not grant them safe-conduct; Charles was even claiming
that bishops were too busy guarding against pirates (Reuter, AF 54 n.
7, Dummler, 1887-8, 2.114-115.) In a letter dated about 22 April 865
(Ep. 38, J2788) Nicholas praised Louis the German and Charles for
their alliance, but rebuked them for not sending bishops to the Roman
synod; they had said they had given Lothar a warning about his
marriage, but Nicholas was annoyed that they had not sent him a copy.
They had told Nicholas that Lothar intended coming to Rome (and
Lothar had sent legates to announce this himself), but Nicholas
prohibited Lothar coming; they intended to warn Lothar again about
midsummer; Nicholas approved of this, insisting that Lothar must take
Theutberga back. He was sending them copies of the letters Arsenius
was bringing them so they could check whether these had been
tampered with. In a letter of 9 June 865 (Ep. 39, J2790) Nicholas
explained to Ado of Vienne why the intended Roman synod had not
been held; he told him about Arsenius’s mission and scotched a rumour
that Theutgaud and Gunther had persuaded him to restore them.

Meanwhile Arsenius reached Gaul. In June he was honourably
received by Louis the German at Frankfurt, and delivered the letters.
With Louis’s leave he continued to Gondreville to take Nicholas’s

107. NICHOLAS

199

letters to Lothar, and threatened him with excommunication if he did
not take Theutberga back by the time he reported home. In July
Arsenius reached Charles at Attigny and delivered the letters (and
Rothad). Then he brought Theutberga, as Nicholas had instructed him,
from Charles’s kingdom to Lothar at Douzy, and ordered Waldrada to
be taken to Italy. He made twelve leading men swear on Lothar’s behalf
and in Theutberga’s presence an oath that Lothar would henceforth treat
Theutberga as his true wife and as queen (AB 865 Nelson 123-4 with
AF 865 Reuter 53-4; AB gives the text of this oath, dated 3 August
865). Nelson notes (AB, 125 n. 11) that one of the bishops present was
Ado of Vienne, which suggests both papal and imperial pressure on
Lothar: Ado had many contacts in the Carolingian world and was
closely linked to Rome. The same day Arsenius restored Theutberga to
Lothar (he was to accept her as his wife under threat of hell-fire), but
Lothar was unrepentant.

Lothar made his peace with Charles and came to him at Attigny.
Arsenius came back there and read out a letter of Nicholas which cursed
those who some years before had looted much treasure from Arsenius
if they did not restore it. Thanks to Charles, Arsenius was also able to
receive back on St Peter’s behalf the villa Vendeuvre which Louis the
Pious had given to St Peter but which had fallen into the hands of one
Wito (Guy). Theutberga then went to Gondreville, followed by Arsenius
and Lothar. A few days later Waldrada was brought there; Arsenius
celebrated the Assummption with Lothar and Theutberga, with
ceremonial designed to demonstrate her regained status, and then took
Waldrada to Orbe, where Louis II was expected to meet Lothar. From
there Arsenius travelled around Alemannia and Bavaria to receive St
Peter’s properties in the surrounding districts, and returned to Rome (AB
865 Nelson 126).

So officially the year 865 saw Lothar and Theutberga reconciled. The
reality was rather different. At the end of the year Lothar ignored his
own promise and his magnates’ oath, recalled Waldrada from Italy and
secretly renewed the liaison. This was too much for Nicholas: Waldrada
had failed to visit Rome, had returned to her province with royal status,
and was laying snares against Theutberga. On 2 February 866 Nicholas
excommunicated Waldrada and all who supported her or communicated
with her, until she made satisfaction through penance, and sent letters
broadcasting this decision (cf. Chronicon of Regino 866; one such letter
survives, Ep. 42, J2808, 13 June 866; it orders copies to be sent through
the neighbouring regions). The deposition of the two archbishops
remained a problem. Gunther had been replaced at Cologne by Hugh.
But AB 866 Nelson 130-1 records that Lothar (‘some say at the instance

200

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

of his brother Louis IP), took the see back and, bribed, gave it to
Gunther’s brother Hilduin, though in non-sacramental matters Gunther
kept control; both Cologne and Trier lacked bishops a long time.

By early 867 Nicholas received a letter from Theutberga saying that
of her own freewill she wanted to be stripped of her royal dignity and
that Waldrada was Lothar’s royal wife. Nicholas did not believe a word
of this, and in a letter dated 24 January 867 ( Ep. 45, J2870) he accused
her of lying; Nicholas urged her to be steadfast and forbade her to come
to Rome unless Waldrada was sent there first; if she wanted a divorce
out of love of purity she should realize that she could not have it unless
her husband wanted it as well. The following day, since Lothar’s
bishops had refused to accept Nicholas’s earlier letters on Waldrada’s
excommunication, Nicholas wrote {Ep. 47, J2871) to them to give them
that information; he ordered them under threat of excommunication both
to make that sentence known and to tell him by letters and legates about
Lothar’s life with Theutberga. The same day Nicholas wrote {Ep. 48,
J2872) to Charles that an incredible rumour had reached him that
Charles had joined forces with Lothar against Theutberga; he objected
to Lothar’s plan to prove Theutberga’s adultery by single-combat; he
asked Charles to see that his letter to Lothar and his bishops was
delivered and to tell him of any who refused to receive it. This letter to
Lothar also survives {Ep. 46, J2873). In it Nicholas wrote that he had
found out that Theutberga’s letter to him had not been written
voluntarily but extorted by force; he explained his views on divorce (as
in Ep. 45), and ordered that Waldrada’s excommunication continue (cf.
AB 867 Nelson 138-9). On 7 March 867 {Ep. 49, J2874) Nicholas asked
Louis the German to urge Lothar to show love to Theutberga (and to
force Engeltrude to return to her husband Boso).

Lothar had decided to go to Rome and to send Waldrada there ahead
of him, but, suspicious of what Charles would do in his absence, he
went to see Louis the German at Frankfurt. He committed his whole
kingdom to him except for Alsace which he gave to Hugh, his son by
Waldrada {AB 867 Nelson 139). Replying to a letter from Lothar,
Nicholas {Ep. 50, J2878, 7 October 867) warned him to order the clergy
of Cologne and Trier to gather and elect themselves bishops: the new
bishops must be seen to have been elected canonically and not through
the favour of Waldrada, Theutgaud or Gunther. They could then be
consecrated, and the papal legates would give them the pallium.
Nicholas had now decided that such was the gravity of the offences
committed by the two former archbishops that all possibility of their
restoration had to be permanently excluded (cf. AF 868 Reuter 57). On
30 October he wrote {Ep. 42, J2885) to Louis the German asking him

107. NICHOLAS

201

to stop pestering him to restore them. The same day he wrote (. Ep . 53,
J2886) to the bishops in Louis’s kingdom urging them to stop asking
him to restore the archbishops. He listed their crimes, recounting the
whole story from the beginning (it is to this letter that we owe
Nicholas’s account of Louis II’s intervention in Rome early in 864). In
another letter to Louis on the same day (Ep. 51, J2884) the pope
thanked him for sending a bishop to ask Lothar to fulfil his orders;
Lothar must not come to Rome until he had sent Waldrada to Nicholas,
had acknowledged Theutberga as queen, and had allowed bishops to be
canonically provided at Cologne and Trier; the pope added that he
expected Louis’s help when papal legates came to collect St Peter’s
revenue in his kingdom the following May.

So, a fortnight before his own death Nicholas had consistently kept
to his stand on the question of Lothar’s marriage, yet still felt he needed
proof that Lothar had taken Theutberga back.

Nicholas was actively interested in the affairs of the eastern church;
the coverage of this in the LP is good though far from impartial (cc. 18-
20, 38-42, 68-76). This concern involved him both in the mission to
Bulgaria and in the question whether Photius (858-867, 878-886) or
Ignatius (847-858, 867-877) was the rightful patriarch of

Constantinople; and his interest in Bulgaria itself had repercussions on
the relationship with Constantinople, over which he was concerned to
assert Roman primacy.

Nicholas clearly hoped to reestablish Rome’s erstwhile jurisdiction in
Illyricum, an issue which becomes very prominent in the next life.
Hence, in part, his interest in the Bulgarian mission, for part of Bulgaria
was in the ancient Illyricum. It would be unreasonable to suppose that
Nicholas was uninterested in missionary work for its own sake. We have
seen evidence of his concern already (p. 192) for the Danes and Swedes.
(In another document (J2759, 31 May 864) whose genuineness has been
questioned, Nicholas is said to have granted Ansgar archbishop of
Hamburg, at the request of Salomon bishop of Constance and legate of
Louis the German, the use of the pallium and public authority to
evangelize all the nations around, Swedes, Danes, Slavs and others
wherever in those areas God has opened the gate to them; to reduce the
power of the archbishops of Cologne, he ordered the bishopric of
Bremen to be added to the archiepiscopal province of Hamburg.) In
another letter of mid-864 (Ep, 27, J2761), Nicholas thanked the Danish
king Horic for gifts sent through Salomon, expressed his pleasure at the
faith the king already had, even before his baptism, and urged him to
stop worshipping idols and serving demons. Nicholas was interested also
in the missions to Moravia conducted successfully from 863 by the

202

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Byzantine evangelists Cyril and Methodius; in 867 he invited them to
Rome (Translatio S. Clement is 8; Vita Methodii 6).

What the LP totally fails to reveal about the Bulgarian mission is that,
as in Moravia, Byzantine missionaries were there first. In 866 Nicholas
responded to an appeal from king Boris, and sent him missionary
bishops, including the later pope Formosus; as Formosus was already
bishop of Porto, Nicholas refused to name him archbishop in Bulgaria.

Late in 858 the Byzantine patriarch Ignatius had been forced to
abdicate; the layman Photius was chosen to succeed him, and as
patriarch he sent letters to Nicholas. Nicholas complained to the emperor
Michael III and on 25 September 860 sent envoys to investigate;
meanwhile he would not recognize Photius (c. 20). At a synod at
Constantinople in 861 the envoys did recognize him (c. 40); when they
reported this to Nicholas, the pope disowned them, and on 18 March
862 insisted on the question being judged at Rome (c. 41). Ignatius’s
supporters presented a biassed view of the case, and at a Roman synod
in 863 (c. 42, cf. n. 81), Nicholas rejected the synod of Constantinople,
and deposed and excommunicated Photius. Michael protested violently;
on 28 September 865 Nicholas defended his actions in a very sharp
letter, and expatiated on the rights of the Roman church, though by
calling Photius or his representatives to Rome he did not slam the door
on a re-examination of the case.

The effect, however, of his sending a mission to Bulgaria and a harsh
letter to Photius (both on 13 November 866) was, not surprisingly, that
Nicholas infuriated Photius. His missionaries seemed to Photius to be
intruding into the work of the Greeks. And the detailed instructions on
moral and legal matters that Nicholas supplied to his missionaries was
anti-byzantine in spirit. And part of Bulgaria was not in ancient
Illyricum at all but within the jurisdiction of Constantinople. The
Roman envoys were stopped at the border and went home (c. 72).
Photius denounced the Roman interference to the other eastern
patriarchs and convoked a synod at Constantinople in the summer of
867, which excommunicated and deposed Nicholas. But Nicholas died
before he could know of this and the sequel. In one of his last letters
Nicholas bitterly bemoaned the Greek attitude to the Roman church; but
the need for a united western front against Constantinople at least
brought about a reconciliation with Hincmar. Such was the formal
beginning of the Photian schism, which, even when solved, left a bitter
memory and played its part in the permanent division between the
eastern and western churches.

Had Nicholas lived a few weeks longer he would have seen himself
victorious in the east, as he was in the west. But even in Italy there was

107. NICHOLAS

203

opposition to him, and the new pope’s stance towards his memory
would be crucial; in fact Hadrian II advised the bishops attending the
synod of Troyes (8 May 868) to have Nicholas’s name included in
prayers at mass, though not even at Rome did any cult develop around
his memory. But events in the east soon showed that Ignatius would not
prove a mere tool of Rome; the Bulgarians looked to Constantinople;
when Ignatius died he was succeeded by Photius.

CHRONOLOGY OF LIFE 107

For what remains of the account of buildings and donations from the
hand of the original compiler, the chronology in Geertman’s view {More
veterum , 211) can be largely reconstructed (though he does not attempt
to do it), but, given the way the text was then treated by the second
compiler, this gives no guarantee for the chronology of the historical
insertions. However, the chronology of these presents little problem,
despite some debate about cc. 21-35; see n. 39.

Reckoning the first six months to September 858 as the first
indiction-year of Nicholas, but excluding September to November 869,
there are 10 indiction-years in the pontificate. St Peter’s is the most
frequent recipient of attention from Nicholas or others; excluding c. 18
which is part of a historical insertion there are nine references (cc. 13,
14, 17, 36, 43b, 54, 66, 79-80, 81b); so one indiction-year is missing
from the record. The second donation (c. 14) is stated to be in the first
year of the pontificate, a dating which, if it is reckoned from April 858,
does not exclude part of the second indiction-year (indiction VII). The
floods in c. 15 are specified as in indiction IX (860-61), and if they are
not a later historical insertion (they do not seem to be: the flood of
January 856 was included in life 106), they provide another fixed point.
It follows that the missing indiction-year is indiction VIII (September
859 - August 860).

The following arrangement of the donations (with the historical
insertions starred) may be tentatively proposed:

I- 10 Early career, character; ordination in the presence of Louis II.

II- 13 donations: indiction VI, April 858 (or even September 857) -
August 858.

14 donations (year 1 mentioned, ending April 859): indiction VII,
September 858 - August 859.

15 floods of Tiber, 30 October 860, and 27 December (indiction IX).
16-17 donations: indiction IX, September 860 - August 861.

*18-20 eastern affairs: gifts and embassy from Michael III (no later
than September 860, so earlier than c. 15, but perhaps in the same

204

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

indiction year). Nicholas sends envoys to Constantinople to decide on
images and report back about Ignatius.

*21-35 the affair of John of Ravenna, down to 18 November 861.
36-37 donations: indiction X, September 861 - August 862.

*38-42 eastern affairs: misbehaviour of the papal envoys, deposition
of Zacharias, March 862 to winter 862-3:

*43a the case of Pepo and Landulf.

43b donations (mainly excised): indiction XI, September 862 - August
863.

*44-50 the case of Lothar’s divorce, November 862 - late 863:
council of Metz (June 863); Lateran council (30 October 863).

51 Nicholas’s scheme to feed the poor.

52-54 donations: indiction XII, September 863 - August 864.

*55-57 consultations of Nicholas, especially on marriages.

*58-63 the case of Rothad and Hincmar (mid-864 to January 865).
*64 the case of Seufred of Piacenza and his deacon Paul.

65-66 Nicholas’s sympathy for the lame and blind; he restores St Peter’s
aqueduct: indiction XIII, September 864 - August 865.

67 Nicholas rebuilds and garrisons Ostia.

*68-76 eastern affairs: Bulgaria and Constantinople, August 866 to
November 867 (assassination of Michael III).

*77-78 Nicholas’s guidance, letters, character.

79-8la donations: indiction XIV, September 865 - August 866.

8lb-82 donations: indiction XV, September 866 - August 867 (donations
in indiction I, September - November 867, may have been reserved for
the next life, but the material was never used).

83 Ordinations, death, burial, 13 November 867.

107. NICHOLAS

205

107. 1. NICHOLAS [I; 24 April 858 - 13 November 867], of Roman
origin, son of the regionary Theodore, 1 held the see 9 years 2 months
20 days. 2 From his earliest childhood this blessed man’s acts shone forth
clearly to everyone, and were famed for their incorrupt character. His
holy actions distinguished him so beautifully that he took no
dishonourable delight in any game or anything else that children are
wont to do. He devoted himself to patience and sobriety, glowing with
humility and an outstanding degree of purity. His father, as a lover of
the liberal arts and well able to kindle the most noble qualities in him,
imbued him with chaste nourishment and bountiful habits, and adorned
him with studies of literature in his retentive mind, 3 so that there
remained no kind of sacred learning that he had not conceived in his
interior depths and transmitted to his understanding. He grew in
physique and he grew in wisdom, famed, relying on modesty, adorned
with knowledge. If he spied anywhere men of commendable character,
his interest was aroused, he was eager to associate with them, and he
rejoiced with them abundantly. 2. When with his wise father he used
to frequent a particular holy man who used to preach much to the
faithful by the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, this man strongly
affirmed that he would climb to the top; for he noticed how great was
his inner beauty and how his mind’s sweetness glistened. On his

1 There was a Theodore, notary and scriniarius, at the council of 853, but Duchesne
thought that at this date ‘regionary’ should refer to one of the defensores in the city
administration. Formed into a schola by Gregory I, the seven regional defensores,
normally clerics, ‘formed the elite corps of a body of officials who were ubiquitous in the
papal patrimonies, and later in the Republic generally’ (Noble, 222-3).

2 Read ‘9 years 6 months 20 days’ (vr for »); Duchesne’s apparatus has no variants, MSS
C 4 * and E 6 * * * * * attribute ‘9 years 7 months 19 days’ to the vacancy after Nicholas’s death. As
Nicholas died 13 November 867 (c. 83), the reckoning will be from Sunday 24 April 858.
But note that the Montecassino Catalogue has 9 years 6 months 13 days (and Paris 5140
has 9 years 9 months 13 days); Nicholas’ ordination could just have been a week later (1
May 858). Cf. 106 n. 1.

3 Duchesne here prints his own emendation in optimatis (mentibus), no doubt inspired by
nobilissimum earlier in the sentence, and perhaps supposed to mean ‘suited to the

mentality of an aristocrat’. But it seems irrelevant to bring in the idea of aristocratic

mentality here (unless a contrast is intended with the kind of education given in the schola

cantorum)\ and would a ninth-century writer have used optimas in the singular? The

context suggests meanings such as ‘insatiable, retentive, compliant, well-disposed’.
Whatever he wrote, it seems likely that the copyists did not understand it. Of the MSS,
CE 12 have inoptinatis , E 6 has inopmatis (Bianchini §577 printed et optimis artibus , a

desperate emendation). I propose inopinatis mentibus : the sense intended may have been

‘unopinionated, unprejudiced’, or (from opinatus as a participle meaning ‘filled with

images’) ‘not yet full of images, therefore receptive’. If the compiler had read Ovid,

Heroides 15.139 mentis inops (‘frenzied’, ‘out of my mind’), he may have thought the

poet was referring to a mind waiting to be filled.

206

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

encouragement he was taken into the order of the clergy, so that what
he had sensed by the Will of God might be fulfilled in time to come.
Moreover when the prelate Sergius [II] heard that he was rising to the
summits of supreme activity, he took him from his parents’ house,
placed him in the patriarchate, and with the grace of blessing established
him in the rank of the subdiaconate. 4 In this he was ever observed to
live wonderfully and was fired with heavenly ardour. 3. Pope Sergius
was taken from this corruptible life, and the prelate Leo [IV] took on
the reins of the Roman church. He very often saw the fruits of the
perseverance he achieved, and with enormous love he consecrated him
deacon. While he served in this order, so much grace was granted him
from above, that he was seen by all to shine with the perfections of
supreme activity. By the clergy he was loved, by the nobles praised, by
the people magnified.

4. When pope Leo was dead, Benedict [III], a man of wondrous
blessedness and a holy pontiff protected from on high, received
preferment to the Roman see, and he joined him to his administration,
because he loved him more than those close to him by blood
relationship, so that he delighted in not being without him for a moment
of time. 5 It was with him that he handed down and promulgated a
decision on whatever they saw to be suited to the needs of church
affairs; he observed how wise was the help his judgment provided and
how famous was the power of his mind; for he always used to do by his
own effort the more needful things that they each noticed. Brought to
the end of his life, he drank the cup of a precious death. And, as he was
still a deacon, he bore him on his shoulders 6 with the other deacons to
St Peter the apostle’s basilica, and with his own hands placed him in the
tomb, evincing the meed of affection that he had for him and the
integrity of his love.

5. At that time the unconquered Caesar Louis had departed from
Rome. 7 When he learnt of his passing he returned there saddened and
troubled. The Romans, on losing so great a shepherd, were shedding sad
tears of mourning. When the clergy, 8 the dignitaries and the group of

4 Ordination as subdeacon by Sergius (844-7) suggests that Nicholas is unlikely to have
been bom earlier than about 820.

5 In other words, Nicholas served in the curia; but for the exaggeration here see p. 162.
Note, too, the presumption here that nepotism was to be expected of a pope.

6 Cf. 106:36.

7 Louis II was still at Rome 1 April 858 when he dated a privilege for the abbey of
Nonantola; Benedict died, probably, 9 days later. Louis returned to influence the election,
cf. next note.

* Cf. AB 858 Nelson 87: ‘Nicholas took (Benedict’s) place, more through the presence

107. NICHOLAS

207

leading men gathered together, they occupied themselves in fasting,
prayer and watching. They besought the Lord with unceasing effort that
he might see fit to show them a man such as they had lost, whom they
might raise up to the pinnacle of the pontificate. 6. While this was
being done, they gathered with all the people in St Dionysius the
confessor and pontiffs basilica. 9 In it they held discussions for some
space of hours and inflamed with light from the stars with one accord 10
they enacted that he be prelate of the apostolic see, and at a swift pace
they immediately made their way to Peter the prince of the apostles’
hall, to which he had fled and where he was lying low: for he said he
was unworthy to take on the helm of so great a rule. But those who
were present made a rush and took him by force from that basilica.
They brought him into the Lateran patriarchate with holy acclamations,
and put him on the apostolic throne. 7. Afterwards he was taken by the
groups of nobles and by all the people to St Peter the apostle’s basilica,
and in Caesar’s presence he was consecrated, elevated to the apostolic
see and made pontiff; and he celebrated the ceremonies of mass
beatifically over the apostle’s sacred body. He was taken back to the
Lateran patriarchate by thick ranks of leading men and of people with
hymns and spiritual chants. Then is the city crowned, 11 the clergy
rejoice, the senate are glad and the fullness of people magnificently
rejoice.

On the third day from his consecration he dined with the emperor; he
was resplendent with sophistic speech, and full of brightness he

and favour of King (jzc) Louis and his magnates than through election by clergy.’ Louis’s
presence at Nicholas’s ordination (c. 7) was a clear sign that he approved the election, and
it is very likely that he influenced the outcome (he was in Rome), though the LP avoids
stating that he took part in it (he was not one of the electorate). The view of the election
taken by AB is confirmed by the fact that supporters and agents of Louis, such as Radoald
of Porto, Arsenius of Orte, and even Anastasius (whom Louis had tried to make pope in
855), though compromised under Benedict, returned to favour under Nicholas and now
played major roles. Nelson, AB 87 n. 10, comments that members of Nicholas’s entourage
also attempted to bolster imperial ideology; cf. Delogu 1968:161.

9 Now S. Silvestro in capite, cf. 106 n. 56; confessor is a surprisingly accurate
reminiscence that the 3rd-century pope Dionysius was not a martyr, and shows that the
mistaken notion that Dionysius was the Parisian martyr had not yet taken root.

10 According to 108:3 they first attempted to elect the priest of St Mark’s (the future
Hadrian II), but he refused, as had done in 855. On both occasions he perhaps wished not
to impede the imperial candidate (cf. 106 n. 4).

11 A very similar set of phrases occurs at 106:5, at much the same point of the life. The
city is ‘crowned’ (decorated with garlands). Duchesne noted that with the punctuation of
the earlier editions (‘He is crowned, the city rejoices...’) this passage gave rise to the idea
that this was the first papal coronation. It was assumed that Louis II granted this right to
Nicholas out of affection and deference; this was taken to be the origin of the first of the
crowns eventually comprising the triple tiara.

208

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

banqueted in Christ. When the magnificence of the feast was finished
he rose, and, kissing Caesar as his spiritual and dearest son, he
encompassed him with love unbounded. 8. These things thus
completed, the serene emperor departed from the city and took up
residence at the place called Quintus. 12 Hearing this, the blessed prelate,
compelled by the fullness of his delight and love, made his way there
with the dignitaries and leading men of the Roman name. When His
Excellency the emperor saw him, he came to meet him as he arrived;
and Caesar took the bridle of the pontiffs horse in his hands and led it
on foot the distance of an arrowshot. With him he entered the imperial
pavilion, and together they enjoyed wholesome conversations. 9. And
when the tables were decked with banquets, together they took food
with spiritual keenness. When they had had their fill and the tables had
been removed, the serene Caesar conferred many gifts on the blessed
prelate. He received them, mounted his horse and essayed to return
whence he had departed. Filled with love for him, the emperor mounted
the saddle of the imperial horse and went with him with triumphant
resolution. When they reached a certain very open spot on the journey,
the emperor dismounted from his horse and again led the pontiffs horse
in the way we mentioned above; and decking each other with sweet
kisses they radiantly rejoiced. 10 . Caesar returned to his pavilion and
continued the journey he had begun. The prelate, hemmed in by the
groups of nobles that had sheltered him, entered Rome and was
magnified for his bountiful behaviour.

He was 13 handsome in appearance, fair of form, learned in speech,
humble in conversation, distinguished in action, intent on fasting and the
worship of God, generous to the poor, a protector of orphans, a patron
to widows, and the defender of the whole people. But since we cannot
set down all the holy works he did in this writing, 14 let us return to what
he presented to the holy places.

11 . This blessed prelate, filled with God’s inspiration, provided in
God’s mother St Mary our lady’s deaconry called Cosmedin 15 1 all-silk
cross-adorned cloth, representing 2 large lions. There too he provided

12 At St Leucius’s (Tor di Quinto), cf. 106:9.

13 Compare 106:20, for very similar wording. In both lives 106 and 107 the compiler
concludes his account of the election with a resume of the pope’s character before
embarking on his excerpts from register material (cf. also 105:18).

14 Fortunately the interpolator followed a different policy; see p. 189.

15 Note not merely that this deaconry is placed first but that it recurs twice in this life (cc.
36, 52); this is surprising in a life which (as the text now stands) mentions relatively few
churches (only nine, apart from the major basilicas, even fewer if we exclude those
beyond the walls).

107. NICHOLAS

209

1 white veil with roses, decorated around with tyrian, of wondrous size.
In that deaconry he also presented 1 fine silver Saxon bowl, gilded, they
weigh 2 lb 4 oz.

12 . In the Saviour’s basilica which has taken its name from that of
Caesar, 16 he provided fine silver crosses which hang before the figure
of the substance of our Lord Jesus Christ’s flesh; 17 on them to his praise
and glory is a wax figure on the usual feastdays, weighing 4 Vi lb. In the
ever-virgin Mary our lady’s basilica called Praesepe he provided 1 fine
silver squat chandelier weighing 8 lb 4 oz. 13 . This God-protected and
blessed pontiff, filled with favour from on high, presented in St Peter
the apostle his mentor’s basilica 1 fine gold bowl with precious jewels,
weighing 3 lb 9 oz. In this holy basilica’s confessio he provided 1 fine
gold iugulum weighing 2 lb. In the same church he provided 11 fine
silver crosses, weighing together 13 lb 5 oz. So too, in St Paul the
apostle and teacher of the gentiles’ basilica, 2 fine silver crosses,
weighing together 4 lb. In St Laurence the martyr’s basilica outside the
walls he provided 2 fine silver crosses, weighing together 4 lb.

14 . In the first year of his pontificate there was brought to his
Beatitude a gold crown embellished with precious jewels, with a weight
of 8 lb 4 oz; in great love he raised it up on gold chains above the most
holy altar for that 18 basilica’s glory.

In the same church of St Peter the apostle his mentor, 9 fine silver
bowls, weighing in all 12V4 lb. In SS Stephen and Silvester’s
monastery, 19 which former pope Paul of holy memory had newly
founded, in the larger church called St Dionysius’s, this God-protected,
venerable and distinguished pontiff provided 4 cross-adorned silk veils
for the holy altar’s honour and glory.

15 . In this distinguished pontiffs [time], 20 i. e. on the 30th day of
October in the 9th indiction [860], the river called Tiber left its channel
and spread over the plains; it swelled in great spate and entered the city
of Rome by the postern-gate called St Agatha’s, at the 10th hour of the
day. Meanwhile in some places it even lapped over, and entered St

16 Constantine's basilica (the Lateran).

17 This odd expression might refer either to a figured crucifix or to an image of the
incarnation (perhaps a nativity scene). The expression is not likely to refer to the reserved
Sacrament, in spite of the phraseology of the early version of the Roman Eucharistic
Prayer given by Ambrose, de Sacramentis 5.21 (CSEL 73.55): oblationem... quod est
figura corporis et sanguinis...

18 In view of the next sentence this may refer to St Peter’s, not St. Laurence’s.

19 Cf. 95 nn. 9, 11; 103 n. 68; on the larger church, 106 nn. 55-6.

20 The expression has been ungrammatically shortened from the source passage, 106:23;
for the details see the notes to that chapter.

210

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Laurence’s church called Lucina’s; from there it extended itself and
entered St Silvester’s monastery, 21 so that of the steps which go up to
St Dionysius’s basilica none except the topmost was visible because of
the flooding; from there it expanded itself through 22 the street called Via
Lata and entered God’s mother St Mary’s basilica there, 23 and the water
swelled so much that this church’s doors could not even be seen because
of the flooding. Then it went up through the streets and lanes as far as
the Clivus Argentarius. From there it turned a right angle and entered
by the portico 24 in front of St Mark’s church. Then it made a rush and
began to run down into the sewer close to the monastery of 25 St
Laurence the martyr’s called Pallacinis. From that day and thereafter the
water gradually began to diminish, and after doing much damage the
river returned to its channel: it overturned houses and walls, desolated
fields, sweeping crops away and uprooting trees.

In the same way, on the 27th day of December, the feastday of St
John the Evangelist, in the same indiction, the river called Tiber again
entered, it left its channel... as above , in the city of Rome... all as
above? 6

16. In the same way this distinguished and blessed pontiff provided
in St Valentine’s monastery in the territory of Nami, located close to
Temi, 27 1 gold-interwoven cloth representing lions, and mizinum around
it.

As for the aqueduct called Iocia, 28 which for unrolled periods of years

21 Note that the reference to St Silvester’s monastery does not cause the same problems
as occur in the MS text of the source passage.

22 For ‘itself through’ (se per) the source passage 106:23 has ‘over’ (super).

25 See 106 n. 58 for the level of this church before the 11th century.

24 Perhaps ‘narthex’; see 106 n. 60.

25 ‘of St Silvester and of...’ in the source passage.

26 For this second flood within two months the compiler could not even be bothered to
recopy the formulas; hence the references to what precedes.

27 This monastic church is mentioned at 93:7, 10. Though at the gates of Temi (8 miles
from Nami), it is stated to be in the territory of Nami. This is the result of Gregory I (Ep
9.72) having annexed the bishopric of Temi to that of Narni (the bishopric was only
reinstated by Honorius 111 in 1218); Temi was thereby deemed to have lost municipal
status.

28 So the aqueduct’s name is spelt in the MSS. Probably the forma lobia or Aqua Iovia
(Marcia) is meant; so Duchesne, and Platner & Ashby, 27. This passes over the Arch of
Drusus near the Appian Gate (Porta S. Sebastiano), and is often mentioned in the 8th and
9th centuries (cf. 97:61 with n. 117, 104:21, and the Einsiedeln Itinerary: ‘the porta
Appia: there is the aqueduct lobia which comes from the Marcia and runs to the river-
bank’). After heading towards the Circus Maximus it emptied into the Tiber near the
Schola Graeca (S. Maria in Cosmedin). There may have been some connexion between
its repair and the foundation of a hospice at the same spot recorded in the next sentence.
Duchesne noted how the false reading (Tocia) in earlier editions of the LP gave rise to

107. NICHOLAS

211

was much broken - by it used to run the water through a water-pipe 29
into the city of Rome - the venerable and distinguished pontiff made
preparations for this aqueduct’s building and restoration from the
foundations.

At the church of our Lord and God Jesus Christ’s same mother called
Cosmedin he provided a broad, spacious and distinguished hospice for
the purposes and need of pontiffs, where they could be fully
accommodated with all who were in their service, whenever it was
opportune.

17. Also, in St Peter the prince of the apostles his mentor’s church he
presented 40 veils with gold-studding, representing the figures of lions,
in the arch of the presbyterium . On the same [church] he conferred a
fine silver chain made with nimble workmanship, weighing 4 lb. In the
oratory of the Holy Cross, established inside St Peter the apostle’s
basilica, he provided 1 silver bowl weighing 2 lb. In St Paul the apostle
and teacher of the nations’ basilica this most holy pontiff provided 1
silver candelabrum weighing 2 lb 6 oz. In St Eusebius the confessor’s
titulus he provided above the canopy a fine silver cross with a melon.

$ 3#C $ £ $

18. In his time Michael, emperor of the city of Constantinople, son
of the emperor Theophilus, for love of the apostles sent gifts to St Peter
the apostle through bishops named Methodius the metropolitan and
bishop Samuel and two others deposed from the episcopal office,
Zacharias and a different Theophilus, and another imperial layman
named Arsabir, the protospatharius : 30 i.e. a fine gold paten with various
precious stones, pearls, prases and jacinths; a gold chalice surrounded
with stones and with jacinths hanging round it on gold wire, and 2

a theory that the name was derived from the Ptochium Lateranense, a hospice (7tT(DXEi ov)
known from a bull of Honorius II, 7 May 1128, but not called ptochium in any earlier or
later documents; and the Aqua Claudia alone was more than sufficient to supply the
Lateran district.

29 Cf. 97:59 with n. 111.

50 From c. 38 it seems that Arsabir was leader of this embassy. Methodius’s see was
Gangra. Nicholas (J2819, Ep. 91 MGHEp 6.513.15, 13 November 866) wrote: ‘suddenly
some bishops, one of whom was the metropolitan of Gangra, with the glorious spatharius
Arsabir, came on an imperial embassy with a royal letter to the apostolic see’. Nicetas
(Vita S. Ignatii , Mansi 16.236B), who names only bishops Samuel and Theophilus on this
embassy, states that Samuel was bishop of Chonae and that Photius had made him an
archbishop in despite of the metropolitan of Laodicea. The other two bishops, Zacharias
and Theophilus of Amorium, had been deposed by Ignatius and appear in the acts of the
4th session of the council of 869-70 as unyielding supporters of Photius.

212

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

repida modelled on peacocks, with a shield 31 and various precious
stones, jacinths and pearls, weighing in all .. lb. Also a gold-studded
cloth with jewels, pearls, representing the Saviour and SS Peter and
Paul and the other apostles with trees and roses, on both sides of the
altar, with an inscription of the emperor’s name, of wondrous size and
beautiful splendour. And handing over many other gifts to the pontiff,
they straightaway pronounced the embassy’s words enjoined on them. 32
19. Now the 33 emperor of the Greeks, having found an opportunity
through the removers of the sacred images, 34 requested by his said
envoys that the apostolic see send its envoys to Constantinople, intent
as he was on the matter of patriarch Ignatius and of Photius the intruder
into the church of Constantinople. In this way he wanted - cunningly
and jealously as it later appeared - this Ignatius to be condemned by the
judgment of the apostolic see, and to replace him in that church with the
neophyte Photius. 20. Then the supreme pontiff, 35 as yet unaware of the
emperor’s awful idea, sent there two bishops, Radoald and Zacharias, 36
with orders to decide in a synod 37 on whatever the dispute about sacred

31 Sense unclear (and not helped by the mysterious repida , for which see the glossary);
it can hardly mean ‘escutcheon’, ‘coat of arms’, at this date. Note the shields on which
copies of the Creed were written, 98:84-5.

32 The date must be earlier than the date on the letters Nicholas sent with the Roman
envoys who accompanied this embassy on its return east, 25 September 860. In the 4th
session of the council of 869-70 Hadrian II’s envoy, the Roman deacon and future pope
Marinus, spoke of the reception the easterners were given at Rome in 860: ‘At the time
I was a subdeacon of the Roman church; I had been consecrated by the holy Roman pope
Leo and serving in the Roman church from my twelfth year of age. When these came to
Rome with Arsabir, I was serving in the Roman church of God’s holy mother called
Praesepe. It was there that holy pope Nicholas received them through the satisfaction of
a document and an oath, and he did not confer on them communion among the bishops.’

33 factus in Duchesne’s text appears as fatus in his lemma. I assume the latter.

34 Nicholas’s Ep. 82 to Michael, borne by the papal envoys and read at the council in
May 861, defends the cult of images, and the council did in fact deal with that topic as
well as with the question of Photius {Ep 85; see n. 81 below).

35 Gr6goire 1966:112-3 links Nicholas’s attitude to Photius with his anxiety to convert
the Bulgarians within Latin jurisdiction; cf. Ullmann 1972:105-6. Important sources are
Nicholas Ep. 91, recounting the earlier stages of the affair; and the preface of Anastasius
to his translation of the council of 869-70 {PL 129.9-24, Mansi 16.1-13).

36 The envoys were the bishops of Porto and Anagni; for Radoald, cf. 106:9, 20.

37 This council met at Constantinople in May 861 (c. 40). On the embassy from Rome,
see Dvomik 1948:74-91 and I966[a]:450-4; Gr6goire 1966:109. The letters they took to
Michael and Photius, dated 25 September 860 {Epp. 82-83, J2682-3) are preserved in a
later letter by Nicholas {Ep. 98, J2821, sent in 866 to the patriarchs and bishops of the
East, by means of the envoys mentioned in c. 71). Both letters contain Nicholas’s
complaints. In Ep. 82, which was read at the council of May 861, Nicholas praised
Michael’s concern for concord between the churches, but blamed him for allowing a
council to be held at Constantinople without the permission of the Roman see and for
allowing Ignatius to be uncanonically deposed and replaced by the layman Photius; he had

107. NICHOLAS

213

images produced, and formally to inquire, only, into the matter of
patriarch Ignatius and the neophyte Photius and report back to him. I
shall skim briefly below through the nature and extent of their senseless
achievements, as they made little of the holy pontiffs injunctions and
were bribed with money there, just like Vitalis and Misenus. 38

21. Meanwhile 39 many of the Ravennates, who were enduring trouble
from that city’s bishop John over the possessions and property they
owned, came to this blessed pope for rescue from such great
oppressions. Dutifully heeding their clamours, he frequently warned the
archbishop by his legates and in writing 40 to desist from such acts. But

sent Radoald and Zacharias to investigate the case; he defended the cult of images, and
ordered the archbishop of Thessalonica to be regarded, according to ancient custom, as
vicar of the Roman see ‘throughout Epirus Vetus, Epirus Nova, Illyricum, Macedonia,
Thessaly, Achaia, Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea, Moesia, Dardaniaand Praevalis’.
He also asked for the return of the Roman patrimony of Calabria and Sicily, and of the
right to consecrate the archbishop of Syracuse (a pointed reference to the deposed
Gregory). In Ep. 83 Nicholas praised Photius’s written profession of faith, but regretted
his being made patriarch when only a layman; he deferred confirming him as such until
his legates reported back to him.

38 Cf. c. 42. The text continues with eastern affairs at c. 38.

39 On the affair of John of Ravenna see Herbers 1991. Chapters 21-35 give rise to a
chronological problem. Two councils at Rome are mentioned, one in c. 23, and one in c.
24 scheduled for 1 November; the council described in cc. 29-35 should be the latter.
Other sources give the following possibly relevant councils: (a) the ‘council of seven
canons’ which excommunicated John of Ravenna, undated (Muratori, R. It. SS . II.ii.127;
Mansi 15.658; PL 119.794); (b) the Roman council of 70 bishops held on 18 November
861, cf. n. 61; (c) a council to do with John of Ravenna, attended by Athanasius of
Naples, cf. n. 49; this cannot be identical with (b) as Athanasius is not among the 70
bishops listed; (d) Nicholas’s Ep. 154 (J2693, possibly spurious), written to Ado of
Vienne, accompanied a copy of the decrees of a council held in Rome in March, year
unstated. Different reconciliations of this material have been given, but Duchesne’s
arrangement is correct and now universally followed. The council of c. 23 is (a), held in
861, in March if it is identified with (d), and attended by Athanasius if it is identified with
(c). The council of cc. 24, 29-35 is (b), the Roman council of 70 bishops (without
Athanasius), held on 18 November 861 though originally scheduled for 1 November.
Duchesne argued cogently that the chronological place of the whole episode in the LP is
determined by the event with which it ends, the council (cc. 29-32) at which John
appeared and made his submission; if this is 18 November 861, it fits before the next
securely datable events in the text, Nicholas’s letters of March 862 (c. 42). The acts of the
council (see n. 61) correspond verbally with cc. 33-34. The date of Ep. 105, in which
Nicholas delivers the bishops of Emilia from John’s oppressions, clearly after the council
of cc. 29-35, is November of indiction 10 (861). It was probably the failure to include this
letter that misled Jaffe and Ewald (Regesta Pontificum) and others. Ewald agreed that the
council of c. 23 was (a), but put it in 862; he put (b) at an earlier stage, corresponding to
nothing in the LP; the council of cc. 29-35 is neither (a) nor (b) but one which began on
the scheduled date, 1 November (862), and is identical with (c), attended by Athanasius.
In favour of this it must be conceded that if Nicholas valued Athanasius’ views about John
so highly, it would have been surprising that he did not attend the council of cc. 29-35.
Nevertheless this is a small point and does not wreck Duchesne’s chronology.

40 Nicholas’s warnings do not survive. John’s misdeeds and those of his brother duke

214

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

he in mental confusion concealed the dutiful father’s warnings and had
no fear in adding to the former things even worse ones. The more the
supreme prelate’s kind consideration advised him to come back to his
senses, the more he turned himself over to what was worse and he
ceased not to add wickedness upon wickedness. 41 22. For some he
rashly excommunicated, some he turned aside from their visitation to
the apostolic see, 42 and the possessions of some he seized without legal
judgment. He stole many of the holy Roman church’s estates, scorned
her envoys and ‘emptied the glory’ 43 of St Peter the apostle as far as in
him lay. If he found charters of St Peter’s right 44 in anyone’s possession
he tore them up and transferred them to St Apollinaris’s right. Without
canonical judgment he deposed priests and deacons, not only those
subject to himself, but those in Emilia 45 who belonged to the apostolic
see; some he had confined in prison, some in filthy workhouses, and
others he forced to make written confession of a crime they had not
committed. 23. He also suppressed the church’s constitutions with no
consent from the apostolic see, and when summoned to Rome by the
supreme pontiff he boasted he had no need to turn up to a synod. 46 No
wonder he did these things afterwards, since at the beginning of his
consecration, just like his predecessor Felix, 47 he falsified the bonds and
tokens which are normally made by archbishops of Ravenna in the

Gregory had already produced protests from Leo IV in 853 (J2627-8). Leo wrote to
Gregory that he was not prepared to let his own people suffer at the latter’s hands but
would personally avenge them. He reminded John that he had broken his oath to the pope
and behaved in a manner unprecedented for a priest by seizing the Roman church’s
property; he threatened that if John continued he would avenge this in person, and he
annulled some kind of promise that John had extracted from one Hilarius. A confused
memory of the events is detectable in the Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma
(MGH SS 3.719-22). Also relevant to relations between Nicholas and John are: Ep. 135
(J2841), undated, in which Nicholas tells John that the catechizing of those to be baptized
can be done by the sacerdotes of every church, as happens at Rome; and Ep. 137 (J2843),
undated, Nicholas’s reply to the archbishop of Ravenna on the case of a senator’s
adulterous wife who had become a nun.

41 Ps. 68.28 (69.27).

42 Nicholas, Ep. 105, p. 615.22 ff, reports the complaint of the bishops of Emilia that
John had released clerics from their submission to the bishops whenever he saw a personal
advantage in doing so, and had prevented the bishops making the customary visits their
predecessors had made to the thresholds of the apostles.

43 1 Cor. 9.15, 2 Cor. 3.7.

44 Cf. canon 6 of the council text, quoted in n. 61.

45 Since clerics in Emilia would normally depend on their own bishops, who were subject
to the archbishop of Ravenna, Duchesne suggested that those referred to here were
appointed from Rome to serve the estates of the Roman church in the area.

46 For further details of the complaints about John see c. 32.

47 LP (Constantine) 90:2, BP 89-90.

107. NICHOLAS

215

church office, and compiled writings that were barbarous when they
were not false.

Then this pope issued three written summonses 48 to him to attend a
synod; and, as he scorned to come, he was deprived of communion by
a holy synod. 49 Going to Pavia, he put vexation into Caesar Louis’s ears
and sought worldly comfort. 24. Then the emperor provided him with
distinguished envoys and, puffed up with pride, he came with them to
Rome. But the bountiful pontiff in kindly fashion rebutted these envoys,
because against the rules of the canons they communicated with an
excommunicate. As they wept for what they had done, the pope - may
God preserve him! - imposed on the archbishop that he should attend on
1 November at the synod 50 by which he had been excommunicated,
demonstrate full satisfaction and put an end to such great transgression.
But he refused and went back home instead.

25. And lo! the men of Emilia and the senators of the city of
Ravenna made their way with countless people to this blessed prelate’s
footsteps in Rome and asked him to imitate our Lord Jesus Christ and
not disdain to set out for Ravenna for their recovery, so that he might
consider everything 51 and lead them to total freedom. So the blessed
pope set out on his own for Ravenna, and when archbishop John knew

48 Not surviving.

49 This is the Roman ‘Council of the Seven Canons’. The first of its canons deals with
the archbishop of Ravenna: though accused of heresy both orally and in a document sent
to Nicholas by Nandecisus bishop of Pola, he has refused to come to the council or purge
himself of the charge; therefore according to the 19th chapter of the Council of Carthage
he is excluded from mass and communion and is excommunicated by the synod until he
presents himself in Rome and proves he has purged himself; and any who communicate
with him are excommunicated. The other canons are as follows: 2) the council teaches that
Christ suffered on the cross only as man; 3) it anathematizes those who say that Christ
suffered on the cross as God, and also 4) those who assert that original sin is not washed
away in baptism (these three canons clarify the heresies of which John was accused: he
was stating that Christ had suffered in his divinity and that baptism is not equally
efficacious for all recipients); 5) the council confirms what was laid down by Leo IV’s
council but violated after the death of Benedict III; 6) it anathematizes anyone who denies
that the election of the pope is a matter for the sacerdotes , primates , nobles and all the
clergy of the Roman church as laid down in the council of Stephen (IV); 7) it
anathematizes anyone who strikes or injures a bishop. For the possibly spurious letter in
which Nicholas sent Ado of Vienne a copy of the decrees of, perhaps, this council, cf. n.
39. Duchesne believed it was this council that Athanasius attended: Nicholas particularly
summoned the archbishop of Naples to the synod against John of Ravenna, gave him the
third place of honour and gave him John’s cautiones to read (Vita S. Athanasii ep.
Neapolitan 4, MGH SSrl 444.20 ff).

50 Between the council of c. 23 and November 861 belong the events of cc. 25-28. John
evidently made his refusal to attend known long before the 1st November, not merely
between then and 18 November when the council in fact took place. The LP here regards
the November council as being that of c. 23 reconvened.

51 Or (less probably) ‘consider them all’.

216

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

he would arrive, he straightaway undertook a journey to Pavia to vex
the emperor’s ears again. 26. But the splendid prelate mercifully
restored to all the people of Ravenna, Emilia and the Pentapolis, what
they had lost by the seizures of archbishop John and his brother
Gregory, and confirmed what he had returned to them by his preceptive
decree. 52

When the archbishop, as has been said, reached Pavia, and when that
city’s fellow-citizens together with their bishop Liutard, 53 who had been
consecrated by the Roman pontiff, heard that the archbishop had been
excommunicated by the supreme pontiff, they gave themselves to so
much caution and vigilance that they would not receive him in their
homes nor allow the sale of anything to his men, in case by such
trafficking they might share even in conversation with them and thereby
incur the mark of excommunication. Instead, when they saw any of the
archbishop’s retinue walking in the streets they shouted: 27. ‘Those are
some of the excommunicated; we must not mix with them!’ Then the
archbishop, seeing he could not in this way achieve the machinations he
wanted, repeatedly demanded help from the emperor. At this the
emperor gave him an order through a go-between, saying: ‘Let him go,
put aside his overweening arrogance, and humble himself before the
great pontiff to whom we and the church as a whole abase ourselves and
bow our necks in obedience and subjection - there is no other way for
him to get what he wants’. 28. When the archbishop heard this, he
began to be uneasy and, again asking with importunate prayers for
imperial envoys, he came to Rome.

The blessed pope, knowing this and despising all his pride as mere
spiders’ webs, remained opposed to him and could not be moved from
his previous decision. But the holy pope addressed the same imperial
envoys, treating them with this kind of great gentleness: ‘If our beloved
son the lord emperor really knew this archbishop John’s actions and
character, not only would he never make requests of us on his behalf,
but he would send him to us, even if he was unwilling, for his
punishment’. 29. When, as this noteworthy pope had decreed, many
bishops 54 of the provinces had met together, he bound the archbishop to
come into their presence, to demonstrate full satisfaction concerning

sz Not surviving.

53 Liutard, one of Louis ILs chief counsellors, was, as bishop of Pavia-Ticinum, exempt
from the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Milan and directly subject to the pope, cf. LP
90:9 (BP 92).

54 This is the Roman council of 18 November 861 (for details see n. 61), though the
bishops may have begun to convene on the date for which it was scheduled, 1 November.
The preliminaries in this chapter may well have occupied over two weeks.

107. NICHOLAS

217

himself and to make adequate amends for his transgression. Hearing
this, the archbishop was terrified and, seeing he could expect help from
no one, he betook himself to lamenting his distress and complaining
about his great trouble, and he tearfully implored those he could, saying:
‘Have pity on me, have pity on me, and beg the supreme prelate’s
clemency to have pity on me, for lo! I am ready to fulfil all he has laid
on me’. Many who saw and heard this related it to the supreme bishop,
and they clearly expressed what he intimated and promised, uttering it
in a tone of lamentation.

30. Then the compassionate pope, imitating the Lord who desires not
the death of a sinner, was moved to mercy and decreed the reception of
the archbishop, now that he was at length converted to the path of
humility. Then he straightaway took the paper, his written promise and
oath that at the time of his consecration he had filled with incomplete
and confused expressions, as could be seen in them; and writing in his
own hand he composed it according to the custom of his predecessors.
He went up to the house called Leonine, 55 in which the blessed prelate
was in session with many bishops, priests, dignitaries and leading men
in attendance, 56 and he placed these writings he had produced on our
Lord Jesus Christ’s lifegiving cross, on his sandals 57 and on the sacred
book of the four holy gospels; and holding these in his hand, he freely
swore in a clear voice to the countless audience who had gathered, that
all the days of his life he would entirely heed, hold and fulfil what was
included and could be read in those written promises of his above-
mentioned; and he read them with his own voice in the sight of all and
handed them over to the supreme prelate.

31. This done, the remarkable and distinguished pontiff went down
next day to the Saviour’s basilica called Constantinian with all the
bishops and the whole clergy, where at the supreme pontiffs bidding
the archbishop was present, and he purged himself of the crime of
heresy 58 on which he was arraigned. The pope restored him to
communion and kindly conceded him licence to celebrate the
ceremonies of holy mass.

Next day, with the supreme and universal pope presiding in the

55 Cf. 98:39 with n. 89.

56 The acts were signed by 70 bishops, not counting the pope and the archbishop of
Ravenna; after them signed 5 Roman priests (one titled viceagens Romanae ecclesiae), the
archdeacon, 3 other deacons, 12 subdeacons, an oblationarius and a primiscrinius .

57 According to the Description of the Lateran attributed to John the Deacon {PL
194.1556), this was one of the relics said to be kept in the Sancta Sanctorum chapel.

58 For his heresies see n. 49.

218

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Leonine House, and with the holy college of sacerdotes and fellow-
bishops in session as usual, the archbishop was present and took his seat
at the supreme prelate’s bidding. 32. Then the bishops of Emilia stood
up and produced their complaint about this archbishop John 59 in
accusatory documents, stating they were enduring many prejudgments
and additional impositions at the archbishop’s hands. Some of those
from Ravenna and Emilia said the same, as anyone can discover if he
looks into the acts deposited in the library. Hearing this, the God-
protected pontiff, with the holy synod, 60 pronounced such things to be
contrary to the norm of the church’s rule; and for the correction of these
transgressions, as this was how the holy synod acclaimed it should
happen, he laid down in a pleasant pronouncement that the Lord’s flock,
entrusted primarily to him, was not through inaction to be left to be tom
by the teeth of wolves. 33. ‘Nevertheless, Archbishop John,’ said the
noteworthy prelate, ‘in order that everything stated can hereafter be
more easily put right by a special amendment, we enjoin on you 61 that,

59 The complaints against John are detailed in Nicholas’s letter to Peter (see unknown)
and the other bishops of Emilia ( Ep . 105), written to announce their freedom from John’s
oppression by sending them the capitula of this council. This letter specifies (p. 614.19ff)
how they had made their complaints in John’s presence (he is described as sanctissimusl)
before the synod, attended by numerous bishops from Campania, Tuscia, the Pentapolis
and other regions. Their first complaint had been that once every two years John would
tour their bishoprics with some 500 men on horseback and stay so long in each district
that their great number consumed everything set aside for the bishop’s needs, for the
maintenance of the clergy and the poor, the reception of travellers, and the restoration of
basilicas and of the bishopric, and would not leave until the local bishop had paid him 200
mancuses and given large gifts to his retinue. He had also made them, despite their
unwillingness, take on the continuous care of three or four horses, and every year without
a break dig farms (curtes) and trench vineyards as if they were bailiffs. He had also
alienated from their government and subjected to himself the plebes , tituli, curtes and
monasteries belonging to their bishoprics. Nicholas then mentions the ‘tricesimaf custom,
n. 65, and John’s prevention of bishops visiting Rome, n. 42.

60 Nicholas ( Ep. 105 p. 615.27ff) continues that the bishops in the council had listened
to the complaints and unparalleled statements and had all exclaimed that the behaviour
was uncanonical and humbly begged Nicholas to forbid it. Nicholas grieved at the way
pernicious burdens and evil custom had tyrannically spread in God’s church, especially
as they had been rashly and uncanonically adopted only in the metropolis of Ravenna,
and, in case such things continued as a precedent to infect God’s churches by showing
metropolitans how they could misbehave, he decreed with the council that the bishops,
their successors and their churches were to be relieved of their difficulties. So in the
presence of the council he laid a formal and openly published prohibition on John and his
successors ever behaving in this way again. He was keeping a copy of the capitula and
sending them copies to keep for ever.

61 The canons of the Roman council held by Nicholas against John of Ravenna are known
from two MSS in Modena, in which they precede Nicholas’s Ep. 105, the inferior one
(Cod. Mut. capituli A. 6. XIX) given in Mansi 15.598, PL 106.787 and Duchesne, the
better one (Cod. Mut. capituli O. II. 2) in Perels’ MGH edition of Nicholas’s letters, p.
614 n. 1. The date given is 18 November in Nicholas’s year 4, Louis IPs year 11 and the

107. NICHOLAS

219

laying aside all excuses other than serious physical problems which
would totally impede you from coming, you are to ensure that you make
your way once a year 62 to the apostolic see, unless it happens that you
receive permission from the apostolic see to remain behind. Also, we
lay down 63 that you may not consecrate the bishops in Emilia unless,
after their election by the duke, 64 clergy and people, you receive
permission to consecrate them in a letter from the prelate of the
apostolic see. And you are never to hinder those bishops from coming
to the apostolic see whenever they want. Nor may you at any time exact
from them any gift which the canons do not prescribe. 34. We enjoin
also that 65 you may in no way force those bishops to provide or exercise

10th indiction (the indiction is repeated twice in the fragment); the first and third formulas
give the year 861, though this was Louis’s year 12. Then follow six chapters; the LP in
c. 33 puts into Nicholas’s mouth the first three of these, and in almost identical wording;
in c. 34 the LP gives the ‘tricesimal custom’, and then the 4th canon, again in the same
words. The 5th and 6th canons run: ‘You are not to attempt in any way to excuse or to
claim free men from public jurisdiction, whether they are from Ravenna or from the cities
of Pentapolis and Emilia, whether nobles or non-nobles; likewise you are also not to
presume in any way to excuse or claim freeborn tenants from public jurisdiction. Seek out
carefully the estates which by destroying charters you have transferred from the right of
St Peter to the right of St Apollinaris and have conferred on individuals by emphyteusis
or documents, and when they are found destroy these emphyteuses or documents and
restore them to the rights of St Peter who had them before and against whom you are
never to act in this way again’; then follow the bishops’ signatures. For the last article cf.
c. 22. Nicholas’s letter ( Ep. 105, pp. 616.14-617.21) explained and expanded the
restrictions placed on the archbishop of Ravenna.

62 Once every two years in the acts.

63 This (canon 2) was really the most important canon. The council stated that John and
his successors at Ravenna should have no more jurisdiction over the bishops of Emilia
than the metropolitans of Liguria, Venetia and Istria had over their suffragans. Ravenna’s
independence of the papacy was destroyed. For the effect on John’s later behaviour, cf.
Nicholas Ep. 152, J2868, undated but after this: Nicholas blamed John for sending without
his permission someone to arrange for the replacement of Oleobert the murdered bishop
of, perhaps, Gavello, and ordered the election to be postponed; the guilty parties must be
found and punished first, a worthy man must be found, agreement must be achieved
between the clergy, the people, and the duke who had Nicholas’s authority and was one
of the same people, then the election could be held, and as had been decided in the synod
(of November 861) John must inform the pope and with his permission he might then
consecrate the bishop.

64 The duke is omitted from the text of the canons, but cf. previous note. The LP text
may be more reliable than even the better Modena MS of the canons.

65 This clause is missing from the acts. Evidently John had contrived to have his own
place supplied by his suffragans, who came on a monthly rota to preside at religious
services in Ravenna. Nicholas’s Ep. 105 mentioned this as a complaint of the suffragans
(p. 616.17ff): ‘that he forces you desert your bishoprics and as if you were priests to
minister every month in alternating or changing turns, and that beyond these days licence
to depart is not granted and you are detained by force 20 or 30 days at Ravenna, and
during all these days no cleric of any bishop dare at all to ride on horseback through
Ravenna without danger to himself, constrained by the archbishop’s order’ (from ‘turns’
to this point the inferior MS substitutes ‘and in these days the small children of your

220

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

for the church of Ravenna that evil custom some call ‘tricesimal’, and
that you may not attempt in any manner to exact from them any custom
contrary to the privileges of bishops. Furthermore we enjoin on you that
you may not now occupy, or set an additional claim of your own on,
the property of any person soever, whether acquired or long possessed
by any device or document soever, until you prove its ownership by
judgment according to the due process of law in the apostolic presence
or in that of his envoy or vestiarius at Ravenna.’ 66 35. When this had
been enjoined and ordered by the blessed pope to be heeded by
archbishop John, the holy synod rose and thrice acclaimed: 4 We all
agree with the supreme pontiffs right judgment, with the shepherd of
the whole church’s just decision, and with Christ’s disciple’s salutary
teaching. We all say the same; we all know the same; we all judge the
same!’ Then the archbishop and all the holy synod, refreshed with the
food of the sacred word and filled by the blessed prelate with the nectar
of sweet savour, 67 received the pontiffs leave and each one went forth
home. 68

$ * $ if. jJc

36. Then this noteworthy pope - God preserve him! - provided in

paroecia die without chrism’, apparently a reference to infant confirmation accompanying
baptism); ‘an end is to be put to this as well as the other things: they may in no way force
you to carry out what they call the ‘tricesimal” (i.c. a custom of ‘thirty’ days). Relevant
to the ‘tricesimal custom’, as Ewald and Perels observed, is an undated fragment of a
letter of Nicholas, Ep. 136, J2S42, in which he told John: ‘We never let bishops desert the

people entrusted to them on other feasts; so there is no clear reason how a bishop can

desert his own church at Easter and minister to another church, especially as the canons
give no order to that effect’.

66 Here and in the text of the council Ravenncte is to be taken as locative not genitive:
otherwise the reference would be either to a vestiarius of the Ravenna archbishopric, who
would have scarcely been chosen to represent the pope in such cases, or to a papal
vestiarius of Ravenna, and the only recorded papal vestiarius is a Roman official. It is this
official who is intended. The meaning is that John must prove his entitlement to property
either in Rome before the pope or in Ravenna before the pope’s representative or his
vestiarius , who is evidently competent to be sent from Rome to deal with such cases. The
vestiarius had in 772 been made judge of all disputes between the abbey of Farfa and
Rome (Noble, 158,237-8; J2395); since then judicial competence may have been extended
to similar cases between other parties.

67 This seems to mean the Eucharist, following the reading of the word (scripture) at
mass.

68 In a further (cf. J2693, Ep. 154) fragmentary letter to Ado of Vienne (J2697, Ep. 106),
dealing with rules about divorce, concubinage, espousals, dowries, and church property,
Nicholas told Ado that John had been paternally received by the apostolic see and had
purged himself on oath of the error of which he was charged; he had sworn that he and
his successors would show due reverence towards the Roman see.

107. NICHOLAS

221

God’s mother St Mary’s church called Cosmedin a fine silver calpi
weighing 5 lb 2 oz. In Vestina’s titulus he provided an expressed-figure
icon of St Vitalis 69 the martyr, weighing 4!/ 2 lb. In Christ’s martyr St
Anastasius’s basilica 70 he provided round the holy altar 4 veils with a
fringe of purple. In St Peter the apostle’s basilica, in pope St Gregory’s
oratory, he presented 3 gold-interwoven cloths decorated around with
all-silk. 37. In St Paul the apostle and teacher of the nations’ church,
this blessed and distinguished pontiff with pure mind presented a gold-
worked cloth of wondrous beauty, with jewels round it, jacinths, pearls,
prases and also carbuncles; there too he provided and presented 2 veils
also gold-worked and with jewels.

As for God’s mother the ever-virgin Mary’s church originally called
Antiqua, 71 but now called Nova, which lord pope Leo IV had
constructed from its foundations but had not given it any pictorial
adornment, this blessed prelate had it depicted in beautiful and varying
colours, 72 increasing its splendour, and with pure heart he decorated it
with many species. 73

* * if * *

38. Now I have explained a little above 74 how a certain schism had
grown up in the holy church of Constantinople, in that, deposing the
reverend patriarch Ignatius from that church’s throne, they had suddenly
replaced him as bishop there with the neophyte Photius, one of the laity
and the soldiers, who had been given the tonsure, against what is laid
down by the reverend canons; and also how Michael the emperor of the
Greeks humbly consulted the Roman see through his envoy the
spatharius Arsabir and with letters in his own hand: he reviled Ignatius
patriarch of Constantinople, whom in lord pope Leo IV’s time they had
raised up with acclamations of praise, he lauded Photius the intruder,

69 This seems to mean that the icon, whether of the whole saint or merely of his face, was
in relief, almost three-dimensional.

70 Probably the church of the monastery of St Anastasius ad Aquas Salvias, since none
of the other five churches listed in HUlsen, Chiese , as dedicated to Anastasius is known
to have existed before the 12th century.

71 See 106 n. 50. S. Maria Antiqua had been so called long before there was any question
of a new building. The LP here ‘legally identifies’ the new church with that on the old
site. The next reference to the church is not until 982.

72 If this refers to mosaic work, it does not survive. The present apse-mosaic at S. Maria
Nova (S. Francesca Romana) is of the 12th century, Oakeshott 1967:250ff.

73 Or ‘types (of adornment)’; elsewhere species seems to refer to precious metal.

74 cc. 18-20. On the action of Nicholas’s legates at Constantinople see Anastos 1990.

222

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and he asked this blessed and remarkable pope to send his envoys there
to investigate what was being said. 39. Furthermore, because he wished
for the church’s strength to remain undefiled, the supreme prelate in no
way refused to do this, as he yearned to root up the heaps of tares, in
case inactivity should allow a stain somehow to burgeon in God’s holy
church. Then he sent from his side two bishops, as mentioned above,
Radoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, whom he reckoned
competent for the task. 75 He commanded and ordered them only to look
into the matter of Ignatius’s deposition and replacement by Photius, and
to report back to him; meanwhile they were to avoid communion with
the neophyte Photius, until they returned and carefully gave a sure
response about everything.

40 . But these went on their journey and, scorning what was in the
mandates they had received, 76 not only did they communicate with the
neophyte Photius contrary to the formal prohibition laid on them, but
they were also bribed with gifts and, in favour of his consecration, they
renewed the deposition of patriarch Ignatius in a general synod that was
convened: this may easily be discovered in the acts 77 they compiled at
Constantinople, and verified as fact both from the envoys, one of whom
was the secretary Leo, and from this emperor’s letter. When these
envoys came home they played up and greatly eulogized what they had
done about Photius, and they reviled and kept denouncing what they had
wickedly achieved about patriarch Ignatius. 41 . So the ruler and prince
of the whole church, the notable and discerning prelate of the apostolic
see, considered all this in holy contemplation. But when he was told
what had been accomplished against his own arrangement, he refused
to believe it until he could investigate it all according to his own
wisdom’s mystic understanding. For the meantime, he composed letters 78

75 What follows is related at length in Nicholas’s letter in 866 to the eastern bishops ( Ep.
98, J2821), in wording sometimes like that in the LP: Nicholas describes the bishops,
much as here, as ‘those who seemed to us competent to perform this great task’; and cf.
next note. The compiler may well have had this letter in front of him.

76 Ep. 98 (cf. previous note) has ‘but they went, and scorning our admonishments...’.

77 For the synod at Constantinople in May 861 over which Photius presided with Radoald
and Zacharias cf. n. 37. The Greek acts do not survive. Evidently the LP used a Latin
translation (‘easily discovered 1 !), presumably one made for Nicholas’s use. Deusdedit’s
canonical collection, which extracted much from no longer extant papal archives, has a
slightly shortened Latin text of the synod.

78 Nicholas’s Ep. 98 (cf. nn. 75-6) preserves the two letters here mentioned ( Epp . 85-86,
J2692, 2691), and another ( Ep . 84, J2690) not mentioned in the LP. All three are dated
18 March 862 and were taken to Constantinople by the imperial secretary Leo. They show
that Nicholas had held a council, presumably earlier that year, and that in the presence of
Michael Ill’s legates he had explained that Radoald and Zacharias had had no authority
to give judgment about Ignatius, and that he did not accept his removal. From this point

107. NICHOLAS

223

of his holy authority, which are preserved in the office of this see, both
to Michael emperor of the Greeks and to Photius, and he gave them to
the same secretary Leo, sending word that he would not consent either
to the deposition of patriarch Ignatius or to his replacement by Photius,
until the truth was acknowledged in his own presence and the affair was
brought to a lawful end. 79 And while some were saying that there was
a decision of this prelate on this matter, and others were clamouring that
Ignatius had been unjustly deposed, this supreme pontiff unremittingly
begged the Judge on High that, through the clemency of him from
whom no secrets are hidden, 80 he might show God’s church that there
had been no consent of his will to such matters.

42. Then, relying on his zeal for God, he summoned a council of
bishops 81 at which it was clearly shown that he had refused consent to

on Nicholas refused to recognize Photius. In Ep. 85 Nicholas wrote to Michael that a few
days after his legates had returned, Leo had given him the acts of the synod of
Constantinople, from which he learned of the wicked judgment of deposition against
Ignatius; he had ordered the case to be investigated, not judged, so he regarded Ignatius
as not deposed and Photius as not patriarch ‘until the truth shone forth in his own
presence 1 ; but he approved what had been decreed about images (cf. c. 19). He
complained that his earlier letter {Ep. 82) to Michael III had been tampered with; and he
urged veneration of the Roman church. In Ep. 86 Nicholas wrote to ‘the most prudent’
Photius about the primacy of the Roman church; he denied that Photius, a layman
replacing the living Ignatius, was comparable with the precedents cited (Nectarius,
Tarasius and Ambrose), and blamed Photius for his breaking the canons of Sardica and
the decretals of the popes. If Photius’s claim not to have the latter was true he was guilty
of negligence, if false, guilty of rashness. He complained that his own letter had been
tampered with and his legates at Constantinople treated unworthily. In Ep. 84 Nicholas
wrote to all the faithful rulers of the catholic churches of Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem and all the eastern metropolitans and bishops, that Ignatius had been deposed
in the presence of his legates without his order and replaced by ‘the most wicked’ Photius;
he ordered that Photius be regarded as an intruder and Ignatius as patriarch; he was
sending them copies of his letters to Michael and to the church of Constantinople.

79 The language reflects that of Ep. 85 (previous note).

80 Cf. Ezek. 28.3 (addressed to the Prince of Tyre), Prov. 20.27; the immediate source
is the prayer ‘God, unto whom every heart is open and every will speaks, and from whom
no secret is hidden, purify by the inpouring of the Holy Ghost the thoughts of our hearts,
that we may deserve perfectly to love thee and worthily to praise thee’.

81 Nicholas’s letters in 866 (especially Ep. 98, and Ep. 91 which includes the decrees)
give full details of this council of bishops from many western provinces, which began at
St Peter’s and then moved to the Lateran, The acts do not survive and the exact date is
unknown: pace Duchesne, who suggested winter 862-3, it is clear from both AB 863
Nelson 106 (see n. 83) and Nicholas’s Ep. 98 that the council was later than that at Metz
in mid-June 863; so late summer 863. Zacharias confessed to corruption and was deprived
and excommunicated (the only decision mentioned in the LP). Photius was also deposed
and excommunicated; an anathema was hurled against Gregory of Syracuse, who had
previously been deprived of his bishopric (by Ignatius), if he continued to claim it;
Photius’s supporters were deprived of offices received from him; Ignatius and his
followers were restored; the cult of images was confirmed; and John (VII; 834-843),
former patriarch of Constantinople, and his supporters were anathematized. It is clear that

224

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Ignatius’s deposition and that the apostolic see’s envoys had deviated in
such matters. Then this godly prelate issued a decree with the holy
synod, depriving the aforesaid bishop Zacharias who was then present
from his sacerdotal rank and even from ecclesiastical communion, in
that he was found to have trespassed in many matters beyond the
apostolic prohibitions on him. This was just what blessed pope Felix
[III] had done to bishops Vitalis and Misenus who had been induced to
give approval to Peter of Alexandria when he was besmirched with the
filth of heresy. 82 The matter of bishop Radoald was left in suspense: 83
but the godly pope with the holy synod later condemned him too, for
violating his commands even further than this in the Gauls as well, 84 for
infringing an excommunication 85 and for undermining a canonical
judgment.

43. This distinguished man, this pontiff of holy endeavour, ordered
the reinstatement of one Pepo, a deacon who appealed to the apostolic
see that he had been deposed from his office by bishop Landulf 86

Ignatius’s side had the upper hand at Rome. In a fragment of a letter (Ep. 87, J2736) sent
to an unknown addressee (hardly Michael III; Perels suggested the prince of the
Armenians) Nicholas stated that he had confirmed Ignatius as guiltless and as patriarch;
he condemned Ignatius’s opponents and the defenders of the adulterous Photius as the
holy Roman synod had decided; he also condemned Gregory, and all who followed him
or had been consecrated by him or by Photius; he was writing to tell the recipient whom
to communicate with and whom to shun in his province; he sent him a Latin version of
the Tome of Leo, praising it highly; he praised his faith and urged him to convert his
subjects from idolatry, promising wholesome teaching through his apocrisiarii when they
ended their journey; and as a gift he sent the blessing of the Apostles on an image.

82 Referred to already in c. 20; LP (Felix III) 50:3-4 BP 42; cf. Thiel, Epistulae
Romanorum pontificum genuinae 1.252ff. Nicholas himself drew the parallel between
Radoald and Zacharias and the two earlier bishops three times: Ep. 90 p. 491 f, Ep. 91 p.
518, and (Radoald alone) Ep. 98 p. 562.

83 He was clearly still employable on the mission to France (c. 46), though the LP fails
to name him after the present chapter. Compare AB 863 Nelson 106: (after the synod of
Metz mid-June 863) Nicholas ‘wished to condemn Radoald on another similar charge’ to
that against Gunther and Theutgaud, ‘for he had lately been corrupted by greed in
Constantinople along with his fellow bishop Zacharias. The pope himself therefore now
summoned a synod. Radoald, when he got wind of this, fled by night and disappeared’.
Nicholas (Ep. 98) also notes that Radoald fled when no one was pursuing him. Radoald
avoided condemnation by deliberate failure to attend. He was finally deposed and
excommunicated (and anathematized if he communicated with Photius) at a synod in the
Lateran basilica in early November 864, and it is to this synod that AB 863 Nelson 106
and AB 864 Nelson 120 refer. Radoald’s successor at Porto was Formosus. Nicholas’s
own account of these events occupies nearly two quarto pages in Perels’ edition (Ep. 98
at pp. 561.6-562.22).

84 The reference is to Radoald’s involvement in Lothar II’s divorce.

85 On this, cf. c. 48. Eastern events are resumed in the LP at c. 68.

86 Landulf was bishop of Capua. The incident is known only from the LP, but Landulf s
reputation is known from Erchampert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, esp. cc.
21 and 31, MGHSSrL 242, 246. The remark most closely connected with this affair is (c.

107. NICHOLAS

225

without judicial process. As the deacon had been judged deposed
without the fixed number of bishops, 87 indeed without proof of the
charge and without his own verbal statement, he quashed the entire
judicial sentence and brought the affair back to the path of rectitude by
his apostolic piety.

* * * * *

While this outstanding prelate governed the apostolic pinnacle,
emperor Louis conferred these gifts on St Peter the apostle, to wit...

4c * * 4c 4c

44. This clement pontiff was so careful about keeping watch over the
Lord’s flock that when any stumbling block arose in holy church he let
his body have no rest and his limbs no sleep until, through his envoys
or his letters, peace was restored and the faithful people regained the
benefit of calm. Now king Lothar 88 had abandoned his wife Theutberga

31, p. 246.30): ‘So he, putting church dogmas and episcopal rights behind him, only loved
half-men and gave them preferment over all, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah (3.4,
Vulgate): ‘Effeminates shall rule over them”.

87 This was three (six for deposing priests, twelve for bishops). In Ep. 107 (J2708)
Nicholas, about 862, insisted that duke Salomon allow the deposed Breton bishops to be
judged either by the archbishop of Tours with twelve bishops, or by the pope (on Leo
IV’s and Benedict Ill’s involvement in this case see pp. 106-7, 165). But there is no trace
of this principle in Italy before 848. Landulfs deposition of one of his own deacons was
procedurally satisfactory under previous law. Leo IV’s principle can be traced back to
African sources (the ‘fixed number of bishops’ is ultimately from the African council
under Gratus in 345-8, c. 11, CChr 149.8 lines 177-9; cf. Ferrandus, Breviatio canonum
55, 128, CChr 149.292, 298). Leo IV had also required 72 witnesses to the crimes of a
bishop: this is from the Symmachean apocrypha (Constitutum Silvestri c. 3; the ‘council
of Sinuessa’, Duchesne I.CXXIIIf). Both African canons and the forged Constitutum were
now accepted as Roman canon law. Leo IV lists the sources of this (MGH Ep 5.593 n.
16, J2599): the canons of the Apostles, those of the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra,
Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, those of Carthage and those of Africa, also the decretals
of popes Silvester (!), Siricius, Innocentius, Zosimus, Caelestinus, Leo, Gelasius, Hilarius,
Symmachus, Simplicius, Hormisdas and Gregory II. When in 861 Photius had 72
witnesses testify against Ignatius in a session at which the Roman envoys Radoald and
Zacharias presided (Nicetas, Vita S. Ignatii , Mansi 16.237D), he may have been
deliberately applying current Roman principles to forestall procedural objections from
Nicholas. For the use of twelve judges to judge a bishop the case of Rothad (c. 58) is also
relevant; see Devisse 1976:592-4.

88 On these and related events see p. 163, AB (Nelson 77, 84, 91-3, 102-3 with notes),
Hincmar, de divortio {PL 125. 629ff) and Nicholas’s letters, especially Ep. 53, J2886, of
31 October 867, which relates the ‘tragedy’ of Theutgaud and Gunther; cf. DUmmler
1887-8:3.1-4; Devisse 1975; Konecny 1976:103-17; Stafford 1983; Bishop 1985:54-84;
Kottje 1988:97-103. Lothar II had married Theutberga in 855; he later tried to argue he
was already married to Waldrada (Hugh, her son by Lothar II, may have been bom as

226

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and taken his concubine Waldrada in marriage, though he had
consulted 89 the Roman see and this godly pontiff about it in the flesh, 90
and was caught up in the rottenness of lechery and in carnal
wantonness. 45. When the supreme pontiff was long contemplating
within himself how he could expel this evil from God’s church in case
that king might pollute others with the plague of this sickness, he began
to be troubled. Grieving in his inmost heart he mourned mightily over
these errors; all the more so when he heard that Theutgaud and Gunther,
the archbishops of Trier and Cologne, with Hagano 91 of Bergamo and
other bishops, had given the king such authority freely to dismiss

early as 855, though perhaps not till c. 860). Waldrada was of noble family, though not
from the imperial aristocracy. By 857 AB records that Lothar put Theutberga aside and
kept concubines (none other than Waldrada is known), and significantly follows this with
portents involving the archbishops of Trier and Cologne who would soon, as Lothar’s
defenders, clash with pope Nicholas. At two councils at Aachen in January and February
860 (MGH Cap 2.463-6, 466-8, see Hartmann 1989:275-8; AB 860 Nelson 92) Lothar
forced Theutberga to confess to sodomy with her brother Hubert, and having had an
abortion (her conception of a child by him was attributed to witchcraft), and she was
condemned to a convent. Jn fear of Lothar, Theutberga fled to her brother Hubert (on
whom see p. 163). At a further council at Aachen on 29 April 862 (Mansi 15.611 fT)
Lothar was given authority to marry Waldrada, cf. AB 862 Nelson 102: ‘Lothar crowned
Waldrada and treated her as his lawful wife and queen while his friends grieved and
objected to this’. Clearly Lothar also had supporters, most notably the two archbishops.
Meanwhile Charles the Bald’s daughter Judith, widow of both /Lthelwulf and Aithelbald
of Wessex, had eloped with Baldwin count of Flanders, with her brother Louis’s consent.
Charles held a council; the bishops anathematized Baldwin and Judith, who therefore
sought help against Charles from Lothar II, and also from Nicholas ( Epp . 7-8, of 23
November 862). So Charles broke off relations with Lothar, because of (a) the divorce,

(b) the fact that Lothar and Waldrada were in communion with Engeltrude (cf. c. 48), and

89 Nicholas ( Ep . 53 at pp. 342.33-343.2) later wrote that two counts had brought him the
news of the decisions of the councils (two at Aachen in 860) that Lothar could divorce
Theutberga and (Aachen, 29 April 862) that he could marry Waldrada: ‘King Lothar sent
two counts to us, through whom he informed us in writing and orally that the bishops of
his kingdom with some others were giving him authority to reject Theutberga and choose
Waldrada in marriage, but that he, so that order might be preserved, sought rather from
us the authority and judgment for such a matter and awaited advice’. Nicholas here, and
the next lines in the LP (probably based on Nicholas’s account), seem to conflate the
decisions of all three councils. It was bishops Theutgaud and Hatto who reported to
Nicholas on the second council; the two counts will be Liutfrid and Walter who brought
Nicholas the report of only the first council.

<XI carnal iter seems to mean ‘on a personal matter’, but the compiler is influenced by the
context. Lothar did not come to Rome in person.

91 That Hagano was involved even before the synod of Metz (next chapter) is not
otherwise attested but plausible in view of his later role. Nicholas refers (Ep 53) to other
bishops than those of Lothar’s kingdom at the council(s) of Aachen; the archbishop of
Rouen and the bishop of Avignon were at the council of February 860; but the allusion
may also be to Hagano’s involvement (though he was not at the council of 862). Nelson
(AB 106 n. 10) notes that Hagano’s role suggests the influence of Louis II. Louis would
shortly be concerned to get the archbishops reinstated.

107. NICHOLAS

227

Theutberga and lawfully to marry the concubine Waldrada; the blessed
prelate had discovered that those who ought to have been his helpers
and leaders before the Lord had been, through their giving of this
authority, his betrayers to everlasting fire.

46. Then with no delay he straightaway despatched his envoys 92 to
France, ordering and advising them that at a synodal meeting convened
in the city of Metz they were to inquire why this king was setting aside
Theutberga and marrying Waldrada; and after inquiring and finding out,
they were to impose a lawful conclusion. On reaching there, the
apostolic see’s envoys began to investigate 93 the nature of this affair.

92 Radoald and John, bishops of Porto and of Ficuclae (Cervla), who took with them
Nicholas’s letters {Epp. 3-8, J2702, 2701, 2699, 2698, 2703-4) dated 23-24 November
862; Nicholas later described his letters as synodical {Ep. 11, J2726, early 863). In Ep.
3 he urged the archbishops and bishops at Metz to judge the marriage case canonically,
with his own legates, and with no distinction of persons; he ordered the acts to be sent to
him for approval or rejection. In Ep. 4 he asked Louis II to assist his legates on their way
to the synod. In Ep. 5 he ordered Charles the Bald to send two bishops to the synod, and
said he had sent the same order to his brother Louis the German (presumably there were
also letters to Charles of Provence and the bishops of his kingdom and that of Louis). In
Ep. 6 Nicholas commended to Lothar his legates who were to hold the synod, and ordered
that two bishops each from the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles of Provence, and
Charles the Bald were to attend. In Ep. 7 Nicholas asked Charles the Bald to restore
Baldwin to favour, despite his marriage to Judith, for fear Baldwin might strike an alliance
with the Norman enemies of the church. In Ep. 8 Nicholas begged Hrmentrude (wife of
Charles the Bald and Judith’s mother) on Baldwin’s behalf. At some point (later in 862?)
he wrote (J2707, Perels p. 278 n. 1 gives the fragment, as suspect) to the bishops of Gaul
about the divorce. Early in 863 Nicholas {Ep. 10) ordered all the archbishops and bishops
of Gaul and Germany to attend at Metz and give canonical judgment about Lothar, who
would be excommunicated if he failed to attend or did not accept penance. To his legates
Nicholas wrote {Ep. 11, J2726) that if Lothar did not appear they were to take him
Nicholas’s mandates, then go to Charles the Bald on the matter of Baldwin, and show him
in public the synodic letters and the one that Nicholas was now sending them along with
its appended statement on the Lothar affair. In a letter {Ep. 57, J2723, end of April 863)
to the bishops who had attended the council of Soissons in 862 (cf. c. 58 with n. 124),
Nicholas urged them to beg Charles on behalf of Baldwin, and wrote about eradicating
Lothar’s crime. Another letter of the same time {Ep. 60, J2722), to Charles the Bald, dealt
with the case of Baldwin, who after being anathematized by the bishops of Charles’s
kingdom had come to Rome, and asked him to let him marry Judith legally. On Radoald
and John’s successful intervention with Charles about Baldwin (who was restored to
favour and allowed to marry Judith) cf. AB 863 Nelson 106, 110. In May 863 {Ep. 16,
J2729) Nicholas replied to a letter from Theutberga’s brother, abbot Hubert; he urged him
to patience and informed him that he had ordered his legates to deal with his case and that
of his sister in synod.

93 On the synod of Metz in mid-June 863 (date, AB 863 Nelson 106) cf. AF 863 Reuter
50-51 and AB 863 Nelson 106. The acts of the council are lost; but it duly condemned
Theutberga, AB asserts by bribery (see n. 95); Hartmann 1989:280-282, Devisse 1976:441-
2. Note the end of the AB account (Nelson 106): ‘in order to give the impression that they
had achieved something, with the connivance of Hagano, a crafty and very greedy Italian
bishop, they ordered Gunther archbishop of Cologne and Theutgaud his fellow-archbishop
of Trier to go to Rome with the childish nonsense which the bishops of Lothar’s realm
had had written out and had subscribed in that synod, so that the case might be settled by

228

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and what they heard Lothar say included: ‘Whatever 94 I have done, I
have followed these bishops’ advice’. Now the distinguished archbishops
referred to were there, Theutgaud and Gunther, whom the holy pope had
already discovered to be the instigators of the great crime. They were
affirming and stating that king Lothar’s marriage with the concubine
Waldrada was lawful, and undertaking that they could come before the
noteworthy lord pope and defend their statement. 47. When the
apostolic see’s envoys, albeit led astray 95 in many matters, made their
homeward journey back to Rome, they related to the supreme pontiff
what they had heard and learnt from the king and from archbishops
Theutgaud and Gunther. While the godly prelate waited for the arrival
of those archbishops, lo! at the behest of the Clemency on high
archbishops Theutgaud and Gunther came to the city of Rome and asked
to be presented to this prelate’s holy footsteps. They were kindly
received by the outstanding prelate 96 and they presented him with a
document, 97 saying they had done neither more nor less than was recited
in it. When that document was carefully scrutinized, a great deal in it
was found to contain a profane baseness of language that many found
unprecedented, and which ensnared those archbishops for their frenzied

the judgement of the pope*.

94 The text is dose to Nicholas Ep. 53 (p. 347.20), which was no doubt citing the lost
acts of Metz: Lothar says ‘Whatever I have done in this matter, I have followed these holy
bishops’ advice’. The LP may be using either the acts or Nicholas’s letter.

95 Nicholas’s own expression is harsher {Ep. 53 p. 343.21): ‘with our legates being
corrupted, nay even traduced into his favour’. Cf. Ep. 36, J2777, a fragment in which
Nicholas complains to Lothar of the treatment of his legates; AB 863 Nelson 106: ‘At this
synod, the two legates, corrupted by bribes, concealed the pope’s letters and carried out
none of the things that had been entrusted to them by sacred authority’; Regino,
Chronicon 865 (ed. Kurze, 82).

96 Apart from the LP only Gunther himself, in the Libellus VII capitulorum {AB 864 c.
2 Nelson 115), suggests that the initial reception of the archbishops at Rome was kind.
The pope even said publicly that their report suggested they could be excused and were
innocent: ‘But we have awaited your reply for three weeks, and you gave us no expression
of certainty, no sound teaching, but only admitted publicly one day that we seemed to be
excusable and innocent according to the assertion of our own published statement.’
Duchesne noted that the two prelates seem hardly to have had a chance to anticipate the
blow that suddenly and skilfully brought them down.

97 Lost, but mentioned in Ep . 53 at pp. 343.27-344.4: ‘A certain profane document was
written about what at the behest of the king was uttered there (at Metz) by wicked throats,
and deciding that these things should stay unaltered they signed it with their own hands,
and in those signatures just as in the rest of what was done Theutgaud firstly and Gunther
were at the fore and like a plague they forced the others to follow them. Then they fully
undertook to come to Rome and provide us with an account of what they had done. At
last they arrived and before the whole church they were presented to our sight. And when
we were inquiring of them how these things had been done, they presented the said
document and testified that they had done nothing more or less or otherwise than the
presented document contained.’ Note the similarity between these last words and the LP.

107. NICHOLAS

229

trespassing beyond their episcopal rank.

48. After this a synod 98 was convened in the Lateran palace beneath
the Apostles, 99 and reasons were found for these same archbishops, as
has been said, to incur a mark of condemnation, particularly since they
claimed to have been the instigators of that great divorce. Nor did they
deny they had dissolved the sentence on Boso’s wife Engeltrude 100 - she
had abandoned her husband Boso 101 for seven years 102 and, even when

98 This council was held at the Lateran; a letter of Nicholas (Ep. 17, J2747), inviting to
it Vitalis patriarch of Grado, gives the scheduled date as 30 October 863. The acts of the
synod are lost, but apart from the version given in the LP and Gunther’s version of events
(Libellus VII capitulorum , c. 3, Nelson AB 115) its decrees are inserted in a letter of
Nicholas which circulated widely and of which four copies are known ( Epp. 18-21, J2750,
2749, 2751,2748; the text of Ep. 19 is in AB 863 Nelson 107-110; Ep. 20, essentially the
same text, is in one version of AF 863 cf. Reuter 51 n. 15); Ep. 18 is the version sent to
Ado of Vienne, Ep. 19 is a copy sent to Hincmar, to Wenilo bishop of Rouen, and to the
other archbishops and bishops in Charles’s kingdom, Ep. 20 is to the archbishops and
bishops in Louis the German’s kingdom, and Ep. 21 is to the archbishops and bishops in
Gaul, Italy and Germany. In brief the decisions were as follows: 1) the acts of the synod
of Metz were quashed, just like the robber-synod of Ephesus (in 449, denounced by Leo
I); 2) Theutgaud and Gunther were deprived of all sacerdotal office and all episcopal rule,
because of Waldrada and because they had violated the sentence which archbishop Tudo
of Milan and other bishops had asked Nicholas to pronounce against Engeltrude (on whom
see c. 48); 3) the same penalty was applied to their followers unless they confessed their
fault through legates and letters; 4) Engeltrude was again anathematized; 5) those who
spumed the decrees of the apostolic see were also threatened with an anathema. Cf. AF
863 Reuter 51 (which adds: ‘If anyone is interested in knowing what was said in the
writings of both sides, he can find them in several places in Germany’); and AB 863
Nelson 106; Hartmann 1989:282-4.

99 LP 86:9 (Sergius I) BP 85 mentions a location ‘beneath the Apostles’ in the Lateran
palace outside the basilica of Theodore. Some 40 years later, pope Zacharias restored this
part of the palace and made many changes: in particular, he built in front of the basilica
of Theodore a triclinium adorned with pictures and mosaics (93:18). But this triclinium
was at the exact spot where at the end of the 12th century Cencius Camerarius mentions
images of Peter and Paul; so Zacharias must have left them in their earlier position.
Duchesne thought that it was either in Zacharias’ triclinium or in the nearby basilica of
Theodore that the council here mentioned was held. Theodore’s basilica was the venue
of a council under Zacharias, in October 745.

100 On Engeltrude, and Benedict Ill’s involvement in this case, cf. pp. 163-4, Wemple
1981:87, Nelson AB 103 n. 31, 109 n. 16. Later she even threatened to seek refuge with
the Northmen, Hincmar de divortio PL 125.754-5. Nicholas had been involved since 860
when he had written Ep. 1, J2684, ordering Hincmar and all archbishops and bishops in
kingdom of Charles the Bald to excommunicate her if she did not return to Boso (the
same order was also sent to king Lothar and his bishops); and Ep. 2, J2685, referring to
his previous letter and ordering Charles to try to stop Lothar allowing Engeltrude to
remain in his kingdom. The case would continue. At Attigny Arsenius read out a letter
from Nicholas excommunicating Engeltrude (AB 865 Nelson 126). And late in 865 (Ep.
41, J2800) Nicholas told Hincmar that Charles the Bald had asked him, Nicholas, for
advice on those who communicated with those who communicated with Engeltrude, a
woman often condemned; he ordered them to be absolved if they had acted through
necessity or ignorance, but not if they had committed the fault deliberately.

101 This Boso, the brother of Theutberga and Hubert, is generally assumed to be the son

230

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

she was excommunicated, bound and anathematized 103 by the godly pope
of the supreme see, had shown no concern to return to him; they
communicated and treated and even spoke with her; and they falsified
the godly pontiffs letter as they wished, as is proved in those acts they
evilly compiled, which are deposited in this see’s office. 49. Then by
the judgment and decree of the holy prelate with the synod, they were
deprived of sacerdotal office and rightly incurred the censure of
deposition. In this synod the kind pope immediately quashed the synod
of Metz at which those acts had been drawn up contrary to God’s will
and his own, and he promulgated certain chapters such as the holy
church needed.

50. This done, the above-mentioned bishop Hagano was summoned;
as some of the bishops wrote to this angelic prelate, he was called
Elihu 104 on account of the ‘words without knowledge’ that resounded in
the above-mentioned profane acts that Theutgaud and Gunther presented,
for Hagano himself was their chief author and had, with the
archbishops, put them together out of inept and mendacious phrases; 105
along with archbishop John, who is dealt with in the text above, and his
brother Gregory, who were held liable for many transgressions, forgetful
of the oath they had given. These were deposed, as they did not beg for
penitential weeping nor did they yet grieve for the great crime they had
committed against king Lothar’s wife. These same men, that is Hagano,
John bishop of Ravenna, and his brother Gregory, had started
fraudulently and impudently to carry out - against the Roman see,
indeed particularly against the Roman pontiff and the people subject to
him and entrusted to him by the lord Jesus Christ through St Peter the
apostle, keybearer of the kingdom of heaven - many wicked, many
contrary and many sacrilegious acts, acts which trespass openly and
secretly against the standard of Christendom. In consequence their
wickedness pierced through mountains and seas, and opposing heaven
with effrontery they cruelly tore the Lord’s people asunder and deceived

of the count Boso at 104:14, though there is no reason why the earlier reference might not
also be to the younger Boso.

102 The figure is confirmed by c. 4 of Nicholas’s letters on the council, AB 863 Nelson
109: ‘Engeltrude... who abandoned her own husband Boso and, look, has now for about
seven years been running about here and there, a vagabond...’.

103 Duchesne resolved the anacoluthon in the Latin by bracketing extiterat\ alternatively
insert cum earlier in the clause. Probably the fault was the writer’s.

104 Job 32.2 etc. Hagano is compared with one of Job’s accusers; note particularly Job
38.2 (‘words without knowledge’). Theutgaud, Gunther and John of Ravenna were no
doubt likened to Job’s other three ‘friends’, and Nicholas to Job himself.

105 Cf. AB, quoted in n. 93.

107. NICHOLAS

231

innocent souls with their viperish faction. And, as past evils were not
enough for them, at the devil’s persuasion they did not refuse to do
other novel and unprecedented acts, worse than the former ones: they
even rashly presumed to touch on 506 what had been individually
forbidden to each and had been, in accordance with the nature of the
crime, prohibited by synod. Alas!, oh! anguish, they spumed God and
did the things I now expansively 107 recall. 108

$ $ $ % $

51 . This friend of Christ kept in his possession a record of the names
of all the lame, the blind and the totally disabled in the city of Rome,
and took care and concern to serve them daily sustenance. For the rest
of the poor who could walk or had strength, he wisely invented this
kind of method to feed them in turns: he ordered disks to be made
engraved with his own name, and bade these be given them, so that it
would be easy to know from the mark on the disks how many were to
take food on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or the remaining days of the
week. On those disks that were given them, for those who were to be
refreshed on Sunday he made on each of the disks two 109 bosses, and so
on them all through to Saturday, so that for whichever day of the week
it was, there would be that number of bosses on each of the disks,
including notches on them where the bosses were made. Thus there

106 The reference is to liturgical celebration by Gunther at Easter 864, despite the ban laid
on him at this synod. This was true only of Gunther, not of Theutgaud.

107 intentando\ perhaps the compiler was making fun of his own style - in the original the
entire chapter is one convoluted sentence of 213 words.

1<IB Late in 863 Nicholas wrote to Lothar {Ep. 22, J2752): ‘You have so consented to
yield to the motions of your body, given rein to your passions and cast yourself down into
the forbidden ‘desolate pit and miry bog’ (Ps. 39 (40).2), that you who had been set up
to govern the peoples have become the ruin of many. The legal case of the former bishops
Theutgaud and Gunther proves it; because they instructed you most incompetently, and
moreover tried to conceal your transgression by their arguments, and under a certain mask
of justice to obstruct equity with certain falsified subtle inventions, they have been
deposed by our apostolic authority and canonically barred from all episcopal rule... Should
you not be treated with vengeance unsheathed - you who are known with two wives to
have aped the adultery and crime of Lamech? - a crime which the Lord blotted out by his
wholesome coming only after 77 generations, though the fratricide of Cain was wiped out
by the waters of the flood after seven generations’. In another fragment of the same period
{Ep. 23, J2753) Nicholas ordered Lothar not to let anyone be elected at Trier or Cologne
until a report had been sent to himself. Perhaps he was leaving open the possibility that
the bishops might be restored, even if he was not impressed by their legal arguments
(Kottje 1968). But subsequent events made such an outcome unlikely: Louis II marched
on Rome in support of them. The sequel is omitted by the LP; see p. 193.

109 The sequence seems to run from two to eight; more logically it will have run from one
to seven. The text is likely to be at fault. The purpose of the notches is unclear.

232

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

would be no poor person in the city who would not be refreshed by his
almsgiving on at least one day during the week.

52. Meanwhile king Charles 110 presented to the holy apostle a cloth
constructed of fine gold and jewels, with prases, jacinths and pearls.

The holy and splendid pontiff, grieving that the people were
oppressed with so many calamities, invoked God alone with countless
prayers and lauded him with unlimited praises, yet he did not abandon
his concern for God’s churches, but rather increased it fittingly at this
time of trouble and trial. For in God’s mother Mary’s basilica called
Cosmedin U] he renewed the secretarium , and there he built a triclinium
of beautiful work, with parlours, for its honour and splendour. Close to
that secretarium he renewed the portico and constructed and built there
an oratory in honour of Christ’s martyr 112 St Nicholas; and the bountiful
man conferred many gifts there.

53. This kind shepherd also renewed St Felix the martyr and
confessor’s cemetery on the Via Portuensis. As for the cemetery Ad
ursum pileatum on the same road, where the bodies of Christ’s
martyrs 113 SS Abdon and Sennen 114 were at rest, as it was now in ruins,
he restored it with beautiful and wondrous splendour. On the Via Appia,
at the cemetery of Christ’s martyr St Sebastian in Catacumbas , where
the apostles’ bodies lay, as it had collapsed for many years, he renewed
it with improved construction; he created 115 a monastery and gathered
monks from wherever he could under the rule of an abbot, and enjoined
that what was needed for food be provided and that other means be
supplied for them.

54. In his time, when the reputation of his holiness was attracting
many, some of the race of the English came to Rome, and in the oratory
of Christ’s confessor pope St Gregory, which was built within the prince

110 Presumably Charles the Bald, rather than Charles king of Provence who died 24
January 863, before the council of 30 October 863 dealt with in cc. 48-50.

111 The first significant alterations to this church since it was built (97:72 and n.142).

1,2 A surprising epithet for St Nicholas, whose legend might have been better known
while his namesake was pope.

113 ‘Martyr and confessor’ is odd. Perhaps ‘confessor’ is a slip for pontiff. The cemetery
on the Via Portuensis is that known as Ad insalatos at about the 3rd mile, still
undiscovered. The cult was to SS Felix and Alexander {Not. ecci , CChr 175.309. 41-52,
has them in a church south of that containing Abdon and Sennen; but Itin. Malm., CChr
175.327.95, has them in the same church). Felix, about whom nothing is known, had
come to be identified with (anti-)pope Felix II, Amore 1975:234-6.

114 Also known as the cemetery of Pontian, cf. 97 n. 168, Amore 1975:227-233.

115 There was already a monastery here, the oldest known in Rome, founded by Xystus
III (56:7 BP 37; see LECP 178). S. Sebastiano’s absence from the 807 list (98:69-81),
even as a basilica, suggests it had by then gone out of use, Ferrari, 163-5.

107. NICHOLAS

233

of the apostles’ sacred house, they placed 1 silver panel weighing .. lb.

In the church of St Peter the apostle, key bearer of the kingdom of
heaven, this clement pontiff provided 5 go Id-interwoven veils, decorated
around with the best all-silk, which are hung for the basilica’s splendour
aloft on the beams inside this great house’s vestibule; he conferred these
to gain the palm of life everlasting.

♦ * * * *

55. In this blessed prelate’s time, the teaching of his distinguished
doctrine being known clearer than light, so many and such important
consultations were sent to the apostolic see from various provinces, as
are never at all recorded from times of old to have arrived. This
farseeing prelate abundantly refreshed every single one of them with the
nurture of the sacred word; giving them precepts and mystic laws, he
filled them with beatific injunctions, he taught them and sent them back
home well taught and trained. 56. But when he knew or heard through
anyone that anything was being done at all erroneously, he preferred to
correct it with his gaze on God alone; with deep laments he devoted
himself to countless prayers that almighty God in his clemency might
change any such thing, by good and distinguished examples, as if it had
never been. For instance, a report came from the island of Sardinia, 116
and he also knew it through those of his household who were of
Sardinian race, in which it was reported to him in some such words as
these: that the judges who were inhabitants of that island, with the
people subject to their government, were contracting incestuous and
illicit liaisons with their close ones and those near to them by blood, as
they had been wont to do in the time of lord pope Gregory IV. 117 57.
Then, taught by the Holy Ghost, he composed honey-sweet letters 118 of
his preaching which shone throughout the world, but were terrible ones

1,6 In theory Sardinia was still a dependancy of the Byzantine empire. In the 10th century
its chief magistrate was an &pxu>v (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Caerimoniis
2.48).

117 This will be from some document no longer extant, perhaps a letter of Nicholas
recounting the background. Leo IV’s surviving correspondence includes three fragments
addressed to the Judge of Sardinia (J2611, 2612, 2648); they do not mention marriage
laws. Nicholas Ep. 141, J2853, is a fragment of a letter to a bishop Jeremias against
consanguineous marriages; Jeremias’s see is unknown and there is no reason to suppose
it was in Sardinia, though he might be the same Jeremias as the bishop (see also
unknown) to whom Leo IV addressed MGH Ep 5.586 n. 3 (J2604).

118 The LP evidently knew of these from the register of Nicholas (cited at the end of the
chapter). The letters are lost (though cf. last note), and no source outside the LP refers to
the embassy. From its place in the text it should be dated to 864.

234

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

to the transgressors, and summoned stalwart envoys, Paul bishop of
Populonia 119 and Saxu abbot of SS John and Paul’s venerable
monastery. 120 He sent them there to recall that Sardinian race from so
great an error. They went, and found some of them mightily hostile to
the teaching, scorning to accept the warnings. But on the warrant of the
supreme prelate’s order, they excommunciated and anathematized the
deaf listeners, until they should beg the medicines of repentance and flee
the evil of incestuous liaisons, as is contained in the letters which these
envoys took to Sardinia, and which are inserted in the register of this
prelate.

58. Moreover one Hincmar, 121 archbishop of Rheims, deposed Rothad
bishop of the city of Soissons while he was appealing to the judgment
of the apostolic see, against the rules of the council of Sardica, 122 and
ordered him to be kept under close guard. So when the thrice-blessed
pope had received documents 123 from the deposed on his innocence, he

119 Here first mentioned in the LP, he was one of the 70 bishops who attended the council
of 18 November 861, and would later be one of the missionaries to Bulgaria.

120 At St Peter’s, the only monastery so named known this early; cf. 98 n. 137; 105:93.

121 On Hincmar see pp. 194-7 and Devisse 1975-6. On the case of Rothad (whom
Hincmar, AB 862 Nelson 100, calls ‘a singularly stupid man’) see Nelson 1991, Dtimmler
1887-8:3.4. Rothad had acknowledged as his metropolitan Hincmar’s predecessor, the
deposed archbishop Ebbo, during his short reinstatement by Lothar I in 840-1, and
therefore at the council of Soissons in 853 did not support Hincmar’s stand against
ordinations conducted by Ebbo. Hincmar’s letters show that from then on he found
Rothad’s conduct objectionable. In 861 he told Rothad to restore a cleric whom Rothad
had deposed; Rothad refused, and at a synod at Soissons (the acts are lost) Hincmar
excommunicated him for disobedience, but did not depose him (AB 861 Nelson 96).
Rothad appealed to the archbishop of Trier, and also to Rome. To Hincmar this was a
personal affront; if Trier judged the appeal this would imply the subordination of Rheims
to another metropolis in Gaul, so Hincmar argued that the canons of Sardica (see nn. 122,
137) required Rothad to appeal only, and directly, to the pope, to whom his judges must
also refer the case (Nelson AB p. 123 n. 8; Fuhrmann 1972-4:1.197-8, Devisse 1976:588-
9). At a synod of several provinces (Sens, Rheims, Rouen, Tours, and perhaps Bourges)
Rothad agreed to attend a tribunal of twelve bishops (on this procedure see n. 87); in 862
this deposed him and imprisoned him in a monastery (AB 862 Nelson 100-101, 865
Nelson 123).

122 Canons 3 and 7 of Sardica (343; Mansi 3.23, 24) were cited by Nicholas in Ep. 57
(J2723, MGHEp 6.358.6-11, 11-20). It was only by considerably stretching their meaning
that Nicholas (at 358.26ff) could produce the interpretation that even if a bishop did not
appeal to Rome the judges should refer the case there anyway. Hincmar’s own
interpretation was different (cf. n. 137).

123 No communication to Rome from Rothad between his appeal and his arrival is
mentioned elsewhere: his libellusproclamations was only presented to the pope 6 months
after his arrival in Rome, towards the end of 864, whereas the first letters sent from Rome
to Hincmar on this affair were early in 863. But the LP does not make it quite clear
whether Rothad himself wrote these documents. Nicholas states (Ep. 55) that he had been
informed ‘by the true report of many of the faithful grieving there’, and (Ep. 57) by ‘very
many of your (Hincmar’s) neighbours’. This links in with Hincmar’s statement that the

107. NICHOLAS

235

warned the archbishop in letters 124 and ordered him to send the deposed
Rothad to Rome with his own envoys for a hearing. But when he came
to this city of Rome 125 in accordance with the pope’s mandates, and

protest came from the bishops of Louis the German’s kingdom and especially from that
of Lothar, who was then on bad terms with him.

124 Surviving relevant letters of Nicholas to Hincmar (and others) down to this point are
as follows. Early 863, Ep. 55, J2712: Nicholas blamed Hincmar for depriving Rothad
while he was appealing to Rome and ordered him within 30 days of receiving this letter
either to recall him from exile and restore him or to send him to Rome with his accusers
and come with him or send a legate, under pain of abstaining from saying mass. At about
the same date, Ep. 56, J2713: Nicholas wrote to Charles the Bald to see to it that Rothad,
fully restored, comes to Rome, and mentions his letter to Hincmar. About 28 April 863,
Ep. 57, J2723: replying to their (lost) letter to him, Nicholas wrote to the bishops who had
convened at the synod (of Soissons, 862), refusing to confirm their acts, expounding how
Roman privileges had been broken in the matter of Rothad, blaming them as supporters
of illegality, and ordering them to recall Rothad from exile within thirty days and send
him to Rome to have his case reexamined, or they must abstain from celebrating the
liturgy. About the same date, Ep. 58, J2721: writing to Hincmar, Nicholas attacked what
had been done at Soissons and the replacement of Rothad by another; his own judgment
should have been awaited, even if Rothad had never appealed; he delayed confirming
Hincmar’s privileges and again ordered him, with threats, to send Rothad to Rome. At the
same time, Ep. 60, J2722: writing to Charles the Bald Nicholas mentioned his order to
Hincmar and the other bishops about Rothad and urged him to send Rothad to Rome for
judgment. On 28 April 863, Ep. 61, J2727: Nicholas told Rothad about his letters to
Hincmar, the bishops, and the king, and urged him to come to Rome as soon as possible;
if he were hindered, he should not stop appealing to Rome; Nicholas would never let him
be forgotten. Perhaps connected with Rothad (if so, to be dated later in 863) is a
fragmentary letter, Ep. 128, J2838, to Hincmar in which the pope insisted on the need for
accuser and accused both to be heard at the same time, however one outranked the other.
Early in October 863, Ep. 62, J2737: Nicholas told Rothad of the various letters about him
to and from Gaul, and that Hincmar had reported that Rothad had been released from his
monastic prison and entrusted to a bishop; Nicholas had again ordered Charles and
Hincmar to send him honourably to Rome, and if he was sure of his case he should hasten
to come. At the same time, Ep. 63, J2738: Nicholas praised Charles for his ready
obedience; he urged him to let Rothad have everything needed for his journey; and in Ep.
64, J2739, replying to queen Ermentrude who had asked Nicholas to listen to Charles
about Rothad’s case, Nicholas wrote that if life were granted him, he would not neglect
the case.

125 AB 863 Nelson 110 (after synod of 25 October) reports that Charles sent Rothad to
Rome, as Nicholas had ordered him to do, with letters and envoys from himself and from
the bishops. AB 864 Nelson 117-18 again states that Charles was obeying Nicholas in
sending Rothad; with him travelled Robert bishop of Le Mans with letters, and the bishops
of Charles’s kingdom also sent envoys to Rome with synodical letters on the case; but
Louis II blocked their journey (Nelson AB 121 n. 18 comments on Louis’s concern about
any deal between Charles and Nicholas over the Lotharingian succession). The envoys
secretly let Nicholas know why they could not come to Rome. Rothad feigned illness and
stayed at Besan^on; when all the others had gone home he travelled via Chur, with the
help of Lothar and Louis the German, to Louis II of Italy, by whose aid he wanted to
reach Rome. In May 864 {Ep. 66, J2756) Nicholas told Hincmar to see that his letters to
Charles were delivered, and expressed surprise that against his orders Rothad had not been
restored to his former position, had not been presented to himself ‘on the 1st May of this
12th indiction’, and had even been hindered after he began the journey; he and Hincmar’s
envoys were to be sent immediately. Rothad had clearly not yet arrived; he will have done

236

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

stayed here for about nine months, 126 no one at all from the side of the
accusers was at any time present to contend with Rothad or accuse him
before the supreme prelate. 59. Then on the day of the vigils 127 of our
Lord Jesus Christ’s Nativity, on which the prelate of this apostolic see
had been accustomed, according to ancient tradition, to celebrate the
offices of mass with the clergy and people in God’s mother’s basilica
in Praesepe , this kind pope came together with them all and at the ambo
he made a public speech 128 about Rothad, showing how he had been
deposed while appealing to the apostolic see and 129 none of the accusers
had appeared in his sight for so many months. 60. Then with a council
of bishops, priests and deacons, and all of them agreeing with him, he
decreed that Rothad was worthy to be garbed in sacerdotal vestments,
as no one was accusing him for so many months and he was
appealing 130 to the judgment of the apostolic see when being deprived
of his office. Then Rothad was clothed in an episcopal vestment, and he
promised he would respond to his attackers at any time; he waited some
days extra, until St Agnes the virgin’s feastday which is on 21 January,
and not even so was there anyone present to raise any dispute against
the now reinstated bishop Rothad. 61. So the blessed prelate came
together with everyone in that virgin’s basilica 131 outside the city-walls
on the Via Nomentana, and bishop Rothad handed the supreme pontiff
a document 132 with his defence and the promise which he had made to

so in June (at Christmas his libellus proclamations stated he had been in Rome six
months).

126 Rothad was still in Rome at the end of January 865, and ‘about nine months 1 implies
he was there for a further two months; the start of Arsenius’s mission to Gaul should be
dated accordingly. Arsenius had left Rome before Nicholas penned Ep. 38, J2788, about
22 April 865.

127 Probably Christmas Eve rather than ‘vigils’ in the old sense, though the mass at
Cockcrow (in galli cantu , ‘Midnight Mass’) was, like the stational mass on Christmas Eve,
held in S. Maria Maggiore.

l2S This survives, and is printed by Perels with Nicholas’s letters (A 4GH Ep 6.379-81) as
Ep. 66a; in it, and in the letters about Rothad sent soon after, occur the earliest clear
traces in papal documents of the influence of the False Decretals, attributed to Isidore of
Seville (d. 636); Perels p. 381 n. 8 gives full details of the correspondences. They were
forged in France about 850 to protect bishops against provincial synods and metropolitans
by exalting the rights of Rome; Duchesne suggested that the Decretals were brought to
Rome by Rothad himself. They certainly suited Rothad’s case against Hincmar. Whether
Nicholas knew they were forgeries is an unresolved question.

129 From this point the LP text is based on Nicholas’s account in Ep. 67.

130 proclamabat\ the equivalent noun appears in the title of the protestation presented by
Rothad on this occasion, the Libellus proclamations (Mansi 15.682-5).

ni Probably this meeting on 21 January 865 was in the Honorian basilica over St Agnes’s
tomb, not in Constantine’s nearby cemeterial basilica, cf. Frutaz 1992.

132 Not surviving, unless it was merely a copy of his previous Libellus proclamations.

107. NICHOLAS

237

respond to his accusers at any time. Everyone listened while it was read
out in their presence at the noteworthy prelate’s bidding. When the form
of his restoration 133 was read, and after all had given their agreement,
on the decision of this blessed prelate the now reinstated bishop Rothad
solemnly celebrated the ceremonies of mass in the church of St
Constantia 134 close to that basilica of the holy virgin.

62. Next day, 135 the synod gathered again in the house called Leonine,
and Rothad’s own defence was made, as it is contained in the
documents which were edited 136 by him, and on the two quires inserted,
sent and presented at one time or another, and deposited in this see’s
archive, in case sacerdotes and particularly appellants to the apostolic
see should in future endure such hazards. He was, as is recorded above,
reinstated in his former rank; and he was sent back to his own see with
apostolic enactments, 137 that, were an appeal to be made against him, it

133 Duchesne and others identify this with Ep. 67, J2782, in which Nicholas formally
notified the bishops and priests of the Roman church and the whole commonalty of the
Roman people about the restoration of Rothad. If so it will have been composed at
Christmas 864 but read and published on this occasion.

134 The real dedicatee of S. Costanza was named not Constantia but Constantina; she was
the daughter of Constantine and the wife of Gallus Caesar, and this was her mausoleum.
The reference in LP 34:23 (BP 21) to a ‘baptistery’ is a confused memory of its
foundation. It has survived the cemeterial basilica of St Agnes onto which it was built;
Frutaz 1992:106-18; Duchesne 1.196 n. 80.

135 22 January 865.

136 This collection of Rothad’s documents probably contained more material than now
survives. Duchesne noted the precision of the LP’s information on both the contents and
the material arrangement of the dossier, and commented that it must have comprised at
least: 1: the libelli innocentiae (c. 58); 2: the libellus proclamations (cf. c. 60); and 3: the
libellus excusationis etpromissionis read on 21 January.

137 These are letters of Nicholas, taken to Gaul by Arsenius when he accompanied Rothad
(he presented him to Charles the Bald in mid-July): Ep. 67 (see n. 133). Ep. 68, J2781:
Nicholas urged the restored Rothad to regather the dispersed property of his church. Ep.
69, J2783: Nicholas commended Rothad, whom he had restored, to Charles the Bald,
ordered the stolen property of the church to be given back to him, and threatened
excommunication against any who hindered Rothad. Ep. 70, J2784: Nicholas informed
Hincmar of Rothad’s restoration and attacked him for his obstructionism throughout; he
ordered him either to let him enjoy his former office or, if he wished to prolong the affair,
to come to Rome with Rothad, with the latter fully restored to office; otherwise Hincmar
would be deposed. Ep. 71, J2785 (part translated in Baldwin 1970:158-61): Nicholas
blamed the Gallic episcopate for daring to eject Rothad while he was appealing to Rome,
against so many great decretals and without consulting him; sentences on bishops are
rightly reckoned ‘among the maiora negotia ’ (Leo I to Anastasius of Thessalonica) in
which the pope should have a say; the decretals and works on church discipline by any
pope who persevered in the faith are to be accepted; these are kept by the Roman church
from of old, are entrusted to Nicholas also to keep, and are venerated in its own archive;
the decretal letters of the popes are to be received even if they are not included in the
codex of canons; he announced the restoration of Rothad and commended him. Ep. 72,
J2786: Nicholas congratulated the clergy and people of Soissons on their restored bishop,
and urged them to accept him. For Hincmar’s icy reaction to the way events had turned

238

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

would be while vested in episcopal insignia that he would in future
respond to his accusers before the prelate of the apostolic see. 63. With
him the holy prelate - whom God preserve! - immediately despatched
bishop Arsenius, 138 this bountiful apostolic see’s apocrisiarius and
envoy, both to reinstate him and to dissolve king Lothar’s liaison, and
also to maintain peace and concord between the kings of the Gauls, so
as to join them together, with peace restored, in the holy church’s
bosom without resistance, and to disseminate carefully and plentifully
in the church of the Gauls some needful matters laid down by apostolic
tradition.

64. Furthermore this pope, through his envoys, reinstated Seufred
bishop of the see of Piacenza 139 in his own see; he had been expelled
from it by the disloyalty of a certain deacon Paul. As for that deacon,
who had presumed to intrude into that see when its own ruler was alive,
he reproved him and his partisans with a fitting rebuke. With the zeal
of holiness, for the utter removal of this deacon’s hapless and wicked
presumption, and for the peace of God’s church, he ordered and
enjoined on him never to try again to achieve any such thing, and not

out see AB 865 Nelson 123-4: Rothad’s deposition had followed the canons (for these cf.
n. 122); Nicholas had arbitrarily and overbearingly restored him. The canons said that if
a bishop deposed by his provincial synod appeals to Rome, the pope should write to the
bishops of nearby provinces for them to investigate the case and make their decision; if
the deposed bishop appeals again to Rome, the pope must either send his representatives
to be judges alongside the bishops, or trust the bishops’ competence to conclude the affair.
But Nicholas had done neither; he had set aside the judgment of the bishops who had
passed sentence and reported the case to Rome, and had restored Rothad on his own
authority. He had sent Rothad to Charles with letters (see above) hurling an anathema
against anyone who refused Rothad anything to do with his status or belonging to his see.
His legate Arsenius had restored Rothad without any inquiry of, or consent from, the
bishops who had deposed him.

138 Bishop of Orte, cf. 106:6-8 and p. 74.

139 839-870. In a fragmentary letter from Nicholas to Louis II ( Ep . 120 § 2, J2791 s. 2,
mid 865), after advising him, with the example of Constantine, that if he hears anything
about sacerdotes which could confuse pious minds he should ‘cover a father’s shame’
(Genesis 9.22-3), Nicholas referred to one stage of this affair (whereas the LP summarizes
all that followed and the outcome): Tf Seufred knew he had committed a crime for which
he could rightly be deprived of his see, or perhaps felt he was overburdened by an illness
that prevented anyone benefiting from his being a prelate, he should have awaited the
judgment of his own primate (sc. the archbishop of Milan), not that of the bishops of
other dioceses. But if any doubt or dispute had perchance arisen about his trial or his
abdication of the see, it should by custom have been referred to the apostolic see, and in
all these matters everyone should have fully followed our decrees. Wc grieve that so far
this has not been done. I strongly beg you, my glory, dearly-beloved, that the said Seufred
who was removed a while ago be restored to his own see, and if he has done anything
blameworthy, let it be settled later by correction or fitting punishment’. Evidently Seufred
had abdicated without the authority of his primate. Nicholas wanted him to be made to
resume his see; there would then be a regular inquiry into any reasons there might be for
him to leave it.

107. NICHOLAS

239

to presume to seek again or accept that see of Piacenza, whether bishop
Seufred was alive or dead. 140

* * * * *

65. This remarkable and distinguished pontiff anticipated everyone’s
distress and needs with the duty of a master. In his clemency he
sympathized with everyone and with swift gaze came to the help of the
needy. And he undertook enormous labours in imitation of our Lord
Jesus Christ who came down from high heaven to the depths to redeem
the human race. 66. Thus, he noticed that the lame and the blind, and
those affected by various pains who lie in St Peter the apostle’s portico
at the bank of the river Tiber, were unable to walk 141 so as to move
anywhere else, and he divinely attended to the need of the various races
which from all sides came to the homes of the apostles for their own
sins: never sparing his own body, he ordered the aqueduct, which had
collapsed for a long time and so was not bringing water to St Peter the
apostle’s, to be restored with very great effort to a better condition than
previously. As a result it would not only benefit the maimed but also be
a distinguished work for all entering St Peter the prince of the apostles’
church; and just so, to the present day it is splendidly visible and
reckoned to be to the beauty of the Leonine city.

67. Furthermore the city of Ostia, which blessed pope Gregory 142 of
godly memory had constructed for the safety of many in case the
wicked race of the Saracens should capture or kill the Lord’s people
around it, was lying in ruins. Touched by inspiration from on high, this
holy prelate ordered it to be rebuilt with stronger and more solid
building, and he restored and improved it, fortifying it also with very
strong gates and towers. In it he stationed men ready for battle, so that
in no way could the incursion of a foreign race in future gain mastery
of it or cause its fellow-citizens losses anyhow, except, forbid the idea,
through idleness.

68. Meanwhile, as the power of the most high God, who daily works
great signs and wonders through his servants, caused this blessed man’s

140 In fact Paul succeeded Seufred in 870, after Nicholas’s death. Hadrian II either did
not know of, or was powerless to enforce, Nicholas’s decision.

141 tendere gressum, from Virgil, Aeneid 1.410.

142 Gregory IV; cf. 103:38-40.

240

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

merits to abound truly throughout the world, the king of the
Bulgarians 143 acknowledged the teachings of Christianity and the holy
faith, and deserved to be baptized. In this man's time he that was
formerly in thrall to creation and savage in his cruelty submitted his
neck and began to live by the full religion, and he employed great piety.
Then in August of the 14th indiction [866] he despatched his envoys to
this catholic and truly orthodox prelate, and conferred no small gifts 144
both on the holy places and on the supreme pontiff. And so that he
might fulfil the sacraments of faith he inquired 145 of his Apostleship

143 Named in the next chapter as Michael, but before his baptism called Boris (Bogoris).
On his baptism and the conversion of the Bulgarians see DUmmler 1887-8:3.8; Dvomik
1926:184-95; Vlasto 1970:155-65; Barbouskos 1990; Holmes 1990. The LP gives no
material on the conversion before Boris’s baptism, fails to mention that Boris was baptized
by a Greek, and ignores both Boris’s contacts with Louis the German and the involvement
of the Moravian Slavs. It was believed (AF 863 Reuter 49) that Bulgarians were coming
to aid Louis the German against the Slav leader Rastiz. The rumour may have been
unfounded, but if such an alliance between the Bulgarians and Louis existed it could
explain why Rastiz looked to Constantinople for missionaries in 862/3 while the
Bulgarians looked to the west (Sullivan 1955:91, Dvomik 1970:100-1, Vlasto 1970:26-7).
If Anastasius is trustworthy ( Praef. concilii oecum. VIII, Mansi 16.10), \.. the king of the
Bulgarians with his own race had received Christ’s faith through a man of Rome, a certain
priest named Paul’ (who, from his status, cannot be Paul bishop of Populonia, mentioned
in c. 69). Salomon bishop of Constance told Nicholas that Louis intended to meet Boris
at Tuln, make an alliance with him, and force Rastiz into obedience; Nicholas prayed for
the success of their journey and their safe return; and because Louis hoped that Boris was
willing to convert to the faith, which many Bulgarians had already done, Nicholas
promised to fast and pray for them ( Ep . 26, J2758, mid 864, at p. 293.1 fT; cf. Ep. 99 c.
17). In 864 Louis and his army met Boris ‘who had promised he was willing to become
a Christian’ (AB 864 Nelson 118); then, later in 864 or in 865 Boris was baptized,
apparently by a Greek priest or bishop, and took the name Michael, as much after the
emperor who was so interested in the conversion of Bulgaria, as after the archangel
(Vlasto 1970:159). In 866 Boris defeated a pagan rebellion, which gave the Christian party
the ascendancy in Bulgaria (AB Nelson 136-7). Wanting to establish a balance between
eastern and western influence in his kingdom and to show less reliance on Constantinople,
Boris requested help from Louis at Regensburg and from Nicholas, both of whom were
also interested in converting Bulgaria (Reuter, AF 56 n. 11, Nelson, AB 137 n. 35,
Obolensky 1966:498-9, Vlasto 1970:159-61). His messengers to Louis stated that there
were already many converts, including Boris, and requested a bishop and priests. Louis
sent to his brother Charles for sacred vessels, vestments, and books to help these priests;
and Charles received a large sum from his bishops which he sent to Louis to send to Boris
(AB 866 Nelson 137). To lead the mission Louis chose Ermanrich, bishop of Passau (from
866), a choice revealing the importance he attached to the mission. But Ermanrich was
delayed (cf. n. 151), perhaps by the need to gather priests and materials (Reuter, AF 56
n. 1). Meanwhile Boris sent to Rome.

144 AB 866 Nelson 137-8 relates how Boris sent his son and many leading men to Rome
with gifts for St Peter including the armour he had worn when he put down the pagan
rebellion (cf. n. 143). Hearing of the gifts, Louis II told Nicholas to send the weapons and
other things on to himself Nicholas, through his envoy Arsenius, did send some items to
Louis who was near Benevento, but sent excuses about others.

145 AB 866 Nelson 137 continues that Boris also sent questions to Nicholas to get his
ruling on them, and asked him to send bishops and priests; all these requests were met.

107. NICHOLAS

241

what he ought to do more wholesomely and what should be done for the
rest of the Bulgarian people who still lacked holy baptism. 69. The
blessed pope heard this, was filled with great joy, gave full thanks to
Christ, rejoiced with the whole church entrusted to him by God, and
with devout mind and suppliant voice uttered infinite praises to our God
who had worked so great a wonder in these last times. The envoys of
Michael, the Bulgarian king already mentioned, were received by the
holy pope and he kept them honourably at his own home. Meanwhile
he appointed as the apostolic see’s envoys Paul of Populonia and
Formosus of Porto, bishops of great holiness, instructed them with holy
advice and honey-sweet teaching, and decreed that they should go to
preach to that race. 70. This pope had already published throughout the
east once and again 146 in apostolic letters all that he had decided about
the church of Constantinople. Even so, in order to make it known to
that church, since the route by land to Constantinople extends through
the Bulgarian kingdom, he sent along with them 147 suitable envoys -

There survives the collection of 106 answers to Boris’s questions on doctrine and
discipline written by Nicholas (in a slightly anti-byzantine tone), the famous Responsa ad
consulta Bulgarorum ; they were taken by the papal envoys when they set out in
November 866 (Ep. 99, J2812, MGH Ep 6.568-600); cf. Sullivan 1955:92-95.

146 Epp. 84-86 of 18 March 862, cf. c. 41 and n. 78; Ep. 87 of 863, cf. n. 81; then, in Ep.
88, J2796, on 28 September 865 (for the date, Perels in MGH Ep 6.454 n. 1 and 487),
Nicholas replied at length to a ‘blasphemous’ letter from Michael III written in 864-5 and
sent by the protospatharius Michael, in which the emperor objected to the
excommunication of Photius. Nicholas accused Michael of falsehood and insolence for
writing that he was giving Nicholas orders; earlier emperors had been wont to make
requests; as for Michael calling Latin barbarous and Scythian - if he called the language
barbarous because he did not understand it he should think how ridiculous it was for him
to be called Roman emperor and not know the Roman language, so he should drop the
title. Nicholas defended Ignatius who had been condemned on an imperial decision by
suspect and hostile judges. He defended the privileges of Rome as given by Christ, not
by synods, and therefore immutable. He refused to send back to Constantinople
Theognostus and the other monks staying in Rome. He demanded that Ignatius and
Photius be sent to Rome with other bishops and provided with their travelling needs. If
he obeyed, Michael could enjoy communion with him, but he should not hurl threats at
a pope who did not fear them and who would not be forced into obedience by them; and
he anathematized any who concealed this letter or part of it from Michael. It seems that
the protospatharius Michael had not waited to take this reply; Nicholas had to send it on
to him to take to Constantinople with a covering letter {Ep. 89, J2797) in which Nicholas
told the protospatharius the gist of its contents, claiming that he, Nicholas, in exchange
for the emperor’s injuries was returning advice and that he had already done what he had
been asked: he had modified the sentence and promised peace and communion to the
church and to the emperor. He asked the protospatharius to present the letter to the
emperor and use a translator who would remove, add or change nothing in it, and he
asked that the emperor have it read intact, translated into Greek; he threatened to
excommunicate him if he failed to deliver it to the emperor. At least Nicholas was leaving
the door ajar for some further discussion, but his tone was scarcely helpful.

147 Paul and Formosus.

242

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Donatus bishop of Ostia, Leo priest of the holy Roman church, 148 and
Marinus deacon of the holy apostolic see 149 - so that the former might
convert the people of Bulgaria to the faith, while the latter might
announce by every means what and how the apostolic see had
deliberated about that church of Constantinople. 150 And this was done
in the Lord’s name with St Peter’s help.

71. The venerable bishops Paul and Formosus stayed in Bulgaria, 151
but when the reverend bishop Donatus, Leo the priest and Marinus the
minister 152 of the apostolic see wanted to go to Constantinople, lo!
between the borders of Bulgaria and of the Constantinopolitans they
came upon one Theodore, who guarded that frontier, and he would let
them go no further; instead, he branded them with countless wrongs and
so abused the legates of so great a see that he even struck the heads of
the horses on which they were mounted, and said: 4 Our emperor

14S Leo was cardinal priest of St Laurence in Damaso (so Nicholas, Ep 90).

149 Marinus was envoy to the council of Constantinople in 869-70, and in 882 he became
pope. He had attended the Roman councils of 860, cf. n. 32, and 861 (PL 106.792) as a
subdeacon. His promotion was therefore fairly recent. Cf. n. 165.

150 They took nine letters (Epp. 90-98, J2813, 2819, 2814-8, 2820-1) all dated 13
November 866, but (cc. 71-2) never delivered. In them Nicholas commended his three
legates to the recipients and sought support from every possible quarter. In Ep. 90 he told
Michael that Radoald and Zacharias had been excommunicated for succumbing to his
threats and ignoring Nicholas’s orders; he explained which parts of his own letters had
been tampered with, demanded Ignatius’s restoration and Photius’s removal, and that they
both be sent to Rome; he again attacked the poisonous letter the protospatharius had
brought him the previous year and ordered the copy to be burnt, or he would convoke a
council, anathematize all involved with that letter, and bum it publicly. In Ep. 91 he
explained the whole schism to the archbishops and bishops subject to Constantinople and
to all the clergy of that city, sent them the text of the Roman synod of 863, and ordered
them to shun communion with Photius or be excommunicated. In Ep. 92 he warned
Photius he would be anathematized for ever if he did not renounce the patriarchate. In Ep.
93 he urged Caesar Bardas to take up Ignatius’s cause. In Ep. 94 he wrote to Ignatius how
he mourned his fate, telling him what the council had done against Photius, and
encouraging him to hope. In Ep. 95 he praised the dowager empress Theodora (widow of
Theophilus, and effective ruler from 842-856), and explained his own zeal for Ignatius.
In Ep. 96 he urged the empress Eudocia to have her husband Michael eject Photius and
restore Ignatius. In Ep. 97 he warned every senator of Constantinople to shun communion
with Photius. In Ep. 98 he told the patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and ail the faithful
in Asia and Libya what he had done about Ignatius and Photius, and sent them copies of
his earlier letters on the matter (Epp. 82-86, J2682-3, 2690,2692, 2691), with Ep. 88, and
the current series. There survives also an undated fragment of a letter of Nicholas in
Greek (Ep. 98a) to the faithful of Asia, Europe and Lydia on the same matters.

151 The connexion between the Roman mission and that sent by Louis the German (cf.
n. 143) is ignored in the LP. When Ermanrich arrived with priests and deacons to
evangelize Bulgaria, Boris received them properly, but the bishops sent by Nicholas had
already filled the whole country with preaching and baptisms; so with Boris’s leave they
went home (AF 867 Reuter 56, AB 866 Nelson 137). For the date of Ermanrich’s mission
(any time before May 868, not necessarily early 867) see Reuter, AF , 56 n. 1.

152 i.e. deacon.

107. NICHOLAS

243

certainly has no need of you!’ 153 72. What is more, the emperor himself
is reported to have told the envoys of the king of the Bulgarians: ‘If the
apostolic see’s envoys had not come through Bulgaria, they would not
have lived to see either my face or Rome again’. 154 They stayed there
for 40 days, and when they knew that the emperor of the Greeks had
ordered this to be done they turned their backs and returned perforce to
Rome, to report these things.

73. The apostolic envoys were welcomed by the aforementioned king
of the Bulgarians [agreejably 155 and with keen devotion; they began to
teach the people with wholesome counsel, and - thanks be to God! -
they bathed them from greatest to least in the holy font, and delivered
the entire practice of the Christian faith to the custom of the Bulgarians,
as they had been instructed to do by the holy pope. The glorious king
of the Bulgarians, allured by this dutiful father’s advice, began to bum
with such great steadfastness of faith that he expelled all foreigners from
his kingdom, employed only the preaching of these apostolic envoys,
decreed indeed that his kingdom needed continuous refreshment in the
pastures of eternal life, and petitioned that one of them, bishop
Formosus, [handsome] 156 in his life and character, be given him as
archbishop. 74. Then he sent his envoys to Rome again; his petition to
the blessed pope included that point, and he asked his holiness for
priests to instruct his race. The pope, learning such things, rejoiced
mightily and, requiting God with countless praises, he tested no small
number of priests in his presence; and those he found worthy of the
grace of preaching he sent to Bulgaria. With them he despatched

153 The eastern reaction to the Roman embassy was not surprising. Quite apart from the
tone of his earlier letters to the east, Nicholas’s excommunication of Photius, and the
vitriolic letter ( Ep. 92) the envoys were taking to Photius, the pope was rubbing salt into
the wound by linking the embassy so directly to the mission to Bulgaria, itself seen by the
Greeks as an infringement of their jurisdiction: the Replies to the Bulgarians (Ep. 99) bear
the same date as the letters to the east (n. 150). Both Michael III and Photius were
indignant. The incident in this chapter is mentioned by Nicholas in his letter of October
867 (Ep. 100, J2879, MGHEp 6.603.11) to Hincmar and the other bishops in Charles the
Bald’s kingdom: ‘Not merely did the emperors of the Greeks refuse to receive them (the
legates), but they strongly stirred up the minds of the Bulgarians against them, as they
allowed them to cross through their land, no doubt hinting precisely that, if they had
crossed through regions subject to themselves, they would have given them over to those
dangers to which the heretical princes of the said city are recorded to have often given
over the apostolic see’s legates when they were sent for the sake of the faith or of church
discipline’.

154 The emperor seems to concede that the Roman envoys have diplomatic immunity
which would not have applied had they not been in Bulgarian territory; cf. last note.

155 grata was supplied by Duchesne to provide an adjective with mente.

156 Understand formosus to be repeated in the sense of ‘handsome’.

244

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Dominic 157 bishop of Trevi and Grimuald bishop of Bomarzo, so that,
as it was inexpedient for bishop Formosus to relinquish the people
entrusted to him, 158 whichever of these priests might be found worthy
of the archbishopric might eventually be elected in the Lord’s name and
sent for consecration to the apostolic see.

75. Meanwhile this blessed pope, the skilful corrector of vices and
worshipper of God, laid down that, when these bishops penetrated
Bulgaria, bishop Paul of Populonia, whom we mentioned above, 159 and
this bishop Grimuald, should bring about in Bulgaria everything that
pertained to God’s service for that people’s instruction, while the
venerable bishops the oft-mentioned Formosus and Dominic should set
out again on to Constantinople to deal with the schism that had arisen
there, about which I have already treated extensively. 160 76. While this
was happening, by God’s judgment a just vengeance overthrew Michael
the emperor of the Greeks and destroyed him with an unspeakable
death. And once Basil was emperor in Constantinople, since God wanted
to complete with a good outcome the unremitting labours that this holy
pontiff endured on behalf of the church of Constantinople, as rumour
had it, Photius the neophyte and intruder was expelled as an adulterer,
and in accordance with the apostolic see’s decree patriarch Ignatius was

157 He was one of the 70 bishops who attended the council of 18 November 861.

158 He already held the see of Porto, and the ancient canons forbade transfer to another
bishopric (in fact, of course, he later became pope); Boris’s wish for an archbishop is
resumed in the next life.

159 In c. 69.

160 What Nicholas will never have known, and what the LP fails to mention in this life,
is that Photius, who had denounced Roman intervention in Bulgaria to the eastern
patriarchs, summoned a council at Constantinople in August-September 867. In retaliation
for Nicholas’s excommunication and deposition of Photius, the council did the same to
Nicholas, Dvomik 1966[a]:453, Nor will Nicholas have known of Michael’s death and
Ignatius’s reinstatement, though the LP does record this in c. 76. Even so, Nicholas was
preoccupied with the Greek question as his death approached (cf. n. 167). On 23 October
867 {Ep. 100, J2879, cf. AB 867 Nelson 141-2, AF 868 Reuter 57) he wrote to Hincmar
and the bishops of Charles’s kingdom about Greek machinations against the Rome; he
explained why the emperors Michael and Basil hated the Latin church, including the fact
that Boris had asked for teachers and teaching from Rome; he explained what customs the
Greeks interpreted as evil in the Latin church (the objections are summarized by Hincmar,
AB 867 Nelson 141, cf. Nicol 1967, Vlasto 1970:161-2). He ordered each metropolitan
to convoke his suffragans to find what was needed to counter the slanders and to transmit
their findings to him as a top priority, so that he could send their findings with his own
statements against the Greeks’ madness. On 24 October {Ep. 101, J2882) he wrote to
Charles that he had ordered all the bishops of his kingdom to convene, and asked him to
assist them; on 30 October {Ep. 102, J2883) he wrote the same to Louis the German,
mentioning that he had entrusted the holding of the synod to Liutbert archbishop of
Mainz. The council was to discuss the schism and the Bulgarian mission and present a
united Latin front against the Greeks. Hincmar received Ep. 100 on 13 December, and
circulated it as Nicholas wanted. But by then Nicholas was dead.

107. NICHOLAS

245

restored to the throne of Constantinople. 161

77. Now this performer of God’s works, this godly and catholic pope,
made it his priority to seek not what was his own but what was God’s,
and with St Peter’s help he took care with supreme poise of
management to fight the Lord’s battles spiritually. Like a father he
guided and warned with great foresight each of those in positions of
power not to harm their subjects; and he also pastorally decreed that
those who were subject to them should be so in accordance with each
one’s privileges. 162 Anyone who wants to know his holy endeavour will
be able to find it clearer than light in his letters, well-balanced ones
which he sent through the districts of the world. 78. He was one who
put his life in his hands, who thought on none but heavenly things, who
by devoting himself to fasting, watching and praying night and day gave
his body no rest and his limbs no sleep. If we mean to insert on paper
all the works he did by Christ’s grace, full of virtues and the faith of
holiness, and all that he taught and fulfilled by his life and character,
perhaps the parchment would run out before the words. Yet before we
turn our pen to the end of his life, let us return to what he conferred on
the holy places.

* * * * %

79. For love of Peter the apostle and prince of the apostles his
mentor, this noteworthy pope provided in his basilica .. tapestries, of
cross-adorned silk, of gold-interweave and of other beautiful and
varying colours; they provide for every one of the great beams all
around, that face on to the presbyterium ; they splendidly augment the
decoration and beauty, and they provide full honour with their wondrous
size. There too he provided a silver arch weighing .. lb, which no one
after the Saracens’ looting had striven to do, and he placed it, better
than it had once been, on top of the higher beam in the middle in front
of the canopy. And underneath it he placed 3 silver images, one of
which he engraved with the figure of the Lord Saviour and two with

161 Michael III was assassinated 23 or 24 September 867; Basil, who had been coemperor
since 26 May 866, was immediately hallowed as emperor by Photius. Soon after, Photius
was deposed, and on 23 November Ignatius resumed the patriarchate. When Nicholas’s
biographer was completing his text, these events were not yet officially known at Rome,
but there was a ‘rumour’. The official news arrived only in the spring of 868; so
Michael’s assassination is dealt with in the next life, 108:22. For the speed at which
official news travelled note how on 13 November 866 Nicholas had written Ep . 93 (cf.
n. 150) to Caesar Bardas, murdered the previous 21 April.

162 praelati is used twice in this sentence, but nowhere else in the LP, in the sense of
‘prelates’, ‘those in positions of power’.

246

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

effigies of angels, and he gilded them with 9 lb of gold; one of them
weighs 80 lb, another 70 lb, and the third also 70 lb. 80. There he
provided 1 gold cross, adorned with precious jewels, weighing .. lb, and
he placed it on the summit of the same arch, and there, for the fullness
of its beauty and appearance, he hung 1 gold crown, 2 silver crosses, 2
silver chalices and 2 silver staupi. He also presented 2 silver crosses,
weighing .. lb, and placed them to right and left on the purple marble
which supports the railings in front of St Peter the apostle’s body.

81. In the Lateran patriarchate he ordered the building of a beautiful
and very fine house; 163 and, constructing there an oratory of God’s holy
mother, this blessed pontiff presented cloths and fitting adornments,
with resplendent vows for love of eternal life.

This God-protected man, encompassed with heavenly grace, renewed
many locations of the saints which were at risk of total collapse; he
conferred various things on various churches, and splendidly increased
what was useful. On the canopy of the Constantinian basilica he hung
4 fine tapestries of silfori and of gold-interweave. He also presented an
equal number of fine tapestries for the canopy of the kingdom of
heaven’s keybearer. 82. He provided the same in the teacher of the
nations’ church. In God’s holy mother’s church ad Praesepe he
provided the same, to gain the prizes of eternal reward. In Christ’s
martyr St Laurence’s church outside the city-walls he also gave 4 fine
tapestries for the canopy.

In this blessed prelate’s time 164 there was such luxuriance and
plentifulness of foodstuffs that this abundance consigned the memory of
the famine in his predecessor’s days to oblivion.

83. He performed 165 one March ordination, 7 priests, 4 deacons; for
various places 65 bishops.

After he had ruled the apostolic see victoriously, as God’s true

163 Evidently the basilica Nicolaitana mentioned at 108:14; the location is unknown.
Without documentary proof, Duchesne conjectured that it was the building which under
Callixtus II (1119-24) became the Chapel of St Nicholas.

164 The phraseology is based on 90:1 BP 89.

165 Duchesne pointed out that this single ceremony cannot have been before 862 or after
866. At the council of 18 November 861 there were only three deacons (John the
archdeacon, Lunicius, and another John); at this stage Marinus, who was a deacon by 866
(c. 70 and n. 149), was still a subdeacon. The four deacons created at this ordination
exactly filled the vacancies among the seven deacons in 861.

107. NICHOLAS

247

athlete, 166 as a catholic and as a prince, he departed from this life to the
Lord on 13 November in the 1st indiction [867]. 167 And what more can
I say, when not only the various races of men that have full use of
reason, but even the very elements of the world (inasmuch as theweather
was inclement), 168 long wept and remained sad at the death of so great
a man?

*****

On his death his body was buried before the doors of St Peter’s. 169

166 Cf. athletic metaphors in 1 Cor. 9.24, 2 Tim. 4.7, etc.

167 In August 867 Hincmar’s legates to Rome found Nicholas (AB 867 Nelson 141) ‘very
ill, and greatly harassed by the dispute he was carrying on against Michael and Basil, the
Emperors of the Greeks, and against the eastern bishops’. For Nicholas’s concern with the
east see n. 160; as a consequence of Michael’s assassination (c. 76), the matter of Ignatius
and Photius would be resolved in favour of Ignatius, as Nicholas wished, but Nicholas did
not live to see it. The date of his death, 13 November, is confirmed by Anastasius’s letter
to Ado archbishop of Vienne: ‘Our pope Nicholas, taken from this wretched life to
heavenly bliss on the ides of November’ (PL 129.741-2, Mansi 15.453-4). AB 867
tortuously expressed the same date as ‘the ides next preceding the month of December’.

168 Or, ‘the atmosphere was intemperate’. The compiler is saying that it rained.

169 Cf. n. 2 for the length of the vacancy added here wrongly in MSS C 4 E 6 . Mallius
confused Nicholas’s tomb with that of Nicholas II; Ado, Chron. (MGH SS 11.323), states
that Nicholas was buried ‘in the atrium before the doors of St Peter’s not far from the
limbs of his predecessor Benedict’ (cf. 106 n. 90). Part of the epitaph survives in the
grottoes beneath St Peter’s (restored text in Duchesne). It praises his virtues, laying stress
on his dogma and sophia , words both occurring in the LP life (cc. 55, 41; cf. sophistico
c. 7).

108. HADRIAN II

249

108. HADRIAN II (867-872).

The author of this, the last life in the ‘continuous’ LP, is likely to be
identical with the interpolator of the historical passages in life 107. He
continues to display familiarity with papal letters (cf. n. 31) and
maintains the same partisanship for Anastasius and his family: hence the
omission of certain sordid details (see below). But even if, when dealing
with the council of Constantinople in 869-70, the LP (c. 42, cf. n. 103)
and Anastasius both remark on the risk of the Greeks behaving
‘swinishly’, our compiler is not Anastasius. The style alone is enough
to rule out his authorship; nor does the LP give quite the same version
of, or emphasis to, the facts (cf. nn. 107, 115, 131). And would
Anastasius, who had been present at that council, have listed the
patriarchates as they are given in c. 19 (though see n. 47)?

There is some possibility that the author of 108 was John
(Hymmonides) the Deacon, best known as the author in the 870s of the
life of Gregory the Great (Amaldi 1956:49, Bertolini 1960). If so, he is
responsible for the self-reference in c. 13, and is there exculpating
himself from an accusation made against him, claiming that the charge
was a ‘shameless calumny’. The content of the first part of 108 is very
different from the original version of 107, as it is from life 106. The
miracle of Hadrian’s multiplication of the denarii (108:2), before his
election as pope, is not material in which any previous compiler of the
LP would have indulged; but it is to be expected from the hagiographer
of Gregory. The references to Job in 107:50 and 108:3 (also 108:27 but
in a quotation) are suitable from the author of a life of Gregory. Minor
points of contact between John and life 108 may be seen in nn. 25 and
127, and the Glossary, s.v. ‘Worthies’, but they do not show common
authorship. If John was not the author we should look to the eyewitness
account of the arrival of the papal envoys to the council of
Constantinople (34ff): Donatus, Stephen, Marinus, or someone in their
entourage (which did not, incidentally, include Anastasius, paceAB 872
Nelson 178).

The life is unfinished. Though the author knew (unless it is an
insertion) the length of Hadrian’s pontificate (c. 1, n. 1), and of the
conspiracy of the Lamberts in August 871 (c. 21), his main text goes no
further than December 870. Yet even in the period covered there are
serious and significant omissions. After describing events at the time of
Hadrian’s ordination and his policy in regard to Nicholas, the author
from c. 22 to the end is interested only in the east and Bulgaria. This
blinkered approach was adopted perhaps deliberately to cover the most

250

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

striking gap in the story, a sordid incident whose omission cannot be
accidental. After c. 22 might have been expected the story of the
kidnapping of the pope’s daughter by Arsenius’s son Eleutherius, and
of the assassination by Eleutherius, at the instigation (it was alleged) of
Anastasius, both of the pope’s daughter and of her mother. While our
author, writing during and or even after Hadrian’s lifetime, may have
failed to finish his work for other reasons, it is likely that he had found
no way to resolve the difficulty he would face, as a supporter of
Anastasius, in treating that incident. He would have encountered a
further difficulty in explaining Hadrian’s later abandonment of
Anastasius’s policy towards Charles the Bald and Hincmar, when
Hadrian disavowed letters written in his name by Anastasius.
Unfortunately no one else stepped in to complete his task; and the lives
of the next three popes were also (as far as we know) unchronicled. The
reasons may again have been political. But perhaps the cause now was
the very fact that our author, a man of distinction and education, had
taken the LP out of the hands of the humble clerks who alone might
have been willing to continue it after their fashion. Our author lacked
a successor from his own milieu.

The life is one whose compiler, uniquely, failed to fall back on
donations and restorations (unless c. 14 be counted) to fill out the text.
It is not reasonable therefore to blame him for omissions, but he might
have seen fit to include Hadrian’s transfer of the relics of St Clement
from the Crimea to Rome, an incident perhaps connected with the
eastern events which occupy so much of the text.

Nicholas’s death produced violence between that pope’s supporters
and opponents: and the LP makes it clear that the attitude Hadrian
would take to Nicholas’s actions was to be a major concern (cc. 14-19;
see n. 39). Lambert duke of Spoleto was directly involved (this is
recorded as an afterthought in c. 20), though it is unclear how far (or
until when) he was pursuing his own interests rather than those of Louis
II. The LP describes how Hadrian as a compromise candidate was able
to acquire unanimous support (cf. Lapotre 1885:21 Of). He was a
conciliator, and could be seen as vacillating; he was acceptably
aristocratic; he was elderly (he had been a candidate for the papacy
twice before), and he may have been regarded as a stop-gap. In 855 and
858 he had stood aside, it may be surmised, in favour of the imperial
candidates. Louis II’s reaction (he was busy fighting Saracens) to the
election suggests that he found Hadrian acceptable. Matters began well
with Louis graciously consenting to Hadrian’s request for the return of
exiles (c. 13), and Hadrian would prove conveniently weaker than
Nicholas in the face of imperial pressure.

108. HADRIAN II

251

What is not clear is where the different factions among the Roman
aristocracy stood in relation to Louis. Nor do we know if Eleutherius’s
action against Hadrian’s family was politically connected. It is
unfortunate that the author of this part of AB , which provides most of
our information on these events, was Hincmar, a man violently opposed
to Anastasius and his family (see below; and AB 867 Nelson 142
describes Arsenius as a man of great cunning and excessive greed); he
recounts the details with evident glee. Hadrian no doubt wished for

independence from the powerful family of Arsenius and his sons
Eleutherius and Anastasius (on the relationship see 106 n. 9), and was
prepared to use Louis’s help to defeat Eleutherius. On the other hand
Anastasius’s influence with the emperor had already been enough to
secure his return to favour with Hadrian: on the day of his ordination
(c. 10) Hadrian allowed him to take communion among ecclesiastics
rather than with the laity, restored him to his priesthood, and made him
librarian (cf. AB 868 Nelson 145, Lapotre 1885:1 If). But on 10 March
868 Eleutherius raped Hadrian’s daughter (who was engaged to a man
whose name is unknown) and kidnapped her and her mother Stephania;
AB states that this was the result of Arsenius’s plotting. True or not,
Arsenius, and also Anastasius, were inevitably embroiled. Arsenius went
to Louis at Benevento, where he died after committing his treasure to
Engelberga. Hadrian informed Louis, who sent officials to judge
Eleutherius by Roman law. Evidently aware of this, and reputedly on
the advice of Anastasius (so it was claimed by one of Anastasius’s
kinsmen, a priest Ado, AB 868 Nelson 148), Eleutherius killed
Hadrian’s wife and daughter. Louis’s envoys then killed Eleutherius.

Hadrian’s problem was that he had shown favour to the family by his
restoration of Anastasius, and was now confronted not merely with a
personal tragedy but with a scandal involving that family. And
Anastasius’s reputation was such that he was likely to be regarded as the
true instigator of his brother’s action, quite apart from any information
a kinsman laid against him. Hadrian dismissed him from all his official
posts and summoned a synod to meet on 12 October 868 at S. Prassede.
The decree then passed in Anastasius’s presence, together with an
account of the facts, survives in AB 868 Nelson 145-150; Hincmar
records the details as they were rehearsed at this synod of Anastasius’s
earlier condemnations back to 850 (on which see pp. 104-6). At the
synod Hadrian renewed Leo IV’s excommunications of 16 December
850, 29 May, 19 June and 8 December 853, related the events of 855
(see life 106 with notes), and then explained how Nicholas had wanted
to receive Anastasius back, despite his crimes: he had plundered the
patriarchate, stolen the synodal documents about himself, and seized

252

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

‘from us’ the synod’s decree reissued with an added anathema. He had
blinded and cut out the tongue of a certain Adalgrim who had taken
sanctuary in the church (it is not clear at which stage this occurred); and
now his kinsman Ado had implicated him as instigator of the murder
Eleutherius had committed. So Hadrian treated Anastasius as Leo and

Benedict had done; he renewed his excommunication, and if he broke
his oath by going more than 40 miles from Rome, the penalty was
perpetual anathema.

Hadrian feared conflict with Louis, with whom Anastasius had more
influence than he did, and whom he did not want to offend. Even if
Louis had accepted Hadrian’s election as unanimous, he had been
involved in the matter of the papal succession, perhaps through Lambert.
It may be a sign of the vacillation with which Hadrian is accused, or a
sign of his need for imperial support, that within a year Hadrian
reinstated Anastasius to his office: he is described as librarian of Rome
when he arrived at Constantinople on the business of Louis II in time
to act in the papal interest at the Council of 869-70 (c. 42). All is far
from fully explained. Why did the priest Ado implicate his own relative
Anastasius? To whom was Hadrian’s daughter espoused? She at least
can have been no stripling. Hadrian had been a priest since 842 and
should have put aside his wife at ordination; if the girl was at least 26,
perhaps considerably older, what politics underlie the fact that she was
espoused at such an age?

Outside Rome, Hadrian’s concerns were with Byzantium (fully
covered in the LP), with the Slav princes of the Danubo-Balkan regions
(covered where relevant to relations with the east; Bulgaria, and not
Moravia), and with the Carolingians (barely alluded to).

The situation at Constantinople had changed with accession of Basil,
who restored Ignatius on 23 November 867, and proceeded towards
restoring relations with Rome, broken since Photius’s council had
anathematized Nicholas. Hadrian received the letters Basil sent to
Nicholas, and dealt with the question at a council convoked in St Peter’s
before 10 June 869. This council anathematized Photius (if he repented
he could be readmitted but only as a layman), allowed that there might
be an amnesty to those who subscribed at Contantinople in 867,
threatened those whom he had ordained with deprivation from all church
offices, and welcomed Basil’s proposal that Rome send envoys to a
council at Constantinople designed to put an end to the whole issue.
Bishops Donatus and Stephen and the deacon Marinus went with letters
for Basil and Ignatius.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (on its status as the Eighth
Ecumenical Council see n. 100) held sessions from 5 October 869 to 28

108. HADRIAN II

253

February 870 (Dvomik 1948:145-158; AB under the year 872, Nelson
178-9; Hadrian’s letters to the east in 868, Epp. 37-38 (nn. 63, 90), and
in 869, Epp . 39-40 (nn. 64, 79, 81, 85)). Hadrian’s request that his
legates preside was ignored: Basil appointed the patrician Baanes as
president in his own stead. The council proclaimed the validity of all the
synodal decisions of Nicholas and Hadrian in favour of Ignatius and
against Photius; it also dealt with the question of images (in a way not
to Hincmar’s liking). Nicholas and Hadrian, it was stated, were speaking
as an instrument of the Holy Ghost. But this Roman victory did not last.
Basil’s reasons for rapprochement with Rome were political: at the same
time he was making overtures to Louis by offering him Byzantine forces
against the Saracens, as the only means by which he could stop all
southern Italy falling into the hands of Louis, the Saracens, or (perhaps)
the pope.

As to Bulgaria, we saw in life 107 how in 866 Boris wanted Rome
to give him an independent archbishopric under Formosus; Rome
objected because of the transfer of see involved. Boris rejected all the
other candidates put forward and turned to Constantinople (108:61-3).
His embasssy reached there in time for the last session of the council,
28 February 870, and three days later there began, summoned by Basil,
a discussion with Ignatius and the Roman legates on the question of
jurisdiction over the Bulgarian church. Ignatius, for all that he owed to
Rome, turned things to his own advantage by having the representatives
of the other patriarchates speak for him: they were naturally favourable
to an eastern claim to jurisdiction. The Roman legates vainly protested,
appealed to a letter of Hadrian’s kept secret until this point but now
thrust into Ignatius’s hands, and forbade Ignatius to send any of his
missionaries to Bulgaria. This Bulgarian debate is given at length in the
LP (108:46-60): it is the only occasion that our text adopts the form of
dialogue. Some months afterwards Ignatius, in spite of the assurances
he then gave of obedience to Rome, consecrated an archbishop and later
various bishops to create a Bulgarian church under Byzantine control.
Meanwhile the Roman bishops and priests were brutally expelled from
Bulgaria, though at the time of writing the author was still not clear
exactly what had happened (108:64). These acts throw a further
revealing light on the true intentions of the easterners; they had been
prepared to use Rome to help in the restoration of Ignatius, but it was
Photius, not Nicholas or Hadrian, whose policies for Bulgaria had suited
Constantinople, and Ignatius could not toe the Roman line. Hadrian’s
reaction was inadequate; he complained that Basil had shown such
disregard for the Roman envoys that they had fallen into the hands of
pirates, he deplored Ignatius’s consecration of a bishop in Bulgaria, and

254

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

he threatened spiritual penalties. But when Basil and Ignatius received
his letters, dated 10 November 871, they will have concentrated more
on his expression of thanks for the way in which they had conducted the
council (Epp. 41-2, cf. nn. 90, 125-6, 141).

Bulgaria was lost to the papacy; but Hadrian hoped he could
compensate for this in a region where eastern and Germanic influences
stood opposed, among the Slavs of central Pannonia and Moravia.
Ratislav king of Moravia had begun dealings with Photius on religious
matters in 862, and Photius had sent to Moravia the Greek brothers
Constantine and Methodius as missionaries. Nicholas and Hadrian drew
them into the Roman orbit. After their first successes they were on the
way to Constantinople with a group of neophytes to arrange for the
organization of their church; in the winter of 866-7 they reached Venice
and Nicholas invited them to Rome. When they arrived Nicholas was
dead, but Hadrian welcomed them with honour. Constantine was already
a priest, but Hadrian ordained as priests Methodius and some of the new
converts, while others were made deacons. Hadrian accepted the
arguments of the brothers for some use of Slavonic rather than Latin in
the liturgy, and this liturgy was even witnessed at Rome. On 14
February 869 Cyril died at Rome and was buried in S. Clemente. Even
Kocel, prince of the Slavs around Lake Balaton, turned to the pope and
asked for Methodius to be sent as bishop missionary for Pannonia.
Hadrian consecrated Methodius bishop with the title of Archibishop of
Sirmium and with authority not only over the Moravians but for the
former Roman provinces of Pannonia Superior and Inferior, now also
inhabited by Slavs (cf. Hadrian Ep . 43, J2924, of 868-9, a letter from
Hadrian borne by Methodius to Rotislav, Svjatopolc and Kocel, though
it may be a forgery based on a letter of John VIII, Ep . 255, MGH Ep
7.222, J3319, June 880). So Rome regained at least a part of the
jurisdiction in Illyricum lost long before to Byzantium. But the cost was
a quarrel with Louis the German. Ecclesiastically the lands were
regarded as in the sphere of the German archbishopric of Salzburg and
the bishopric of Passau. In secular terms Ratislav in 864 had sworn
allegiance to Louis the German, and Kocel could not accept the
increased power of the neighbouring Moravians. So when Methodius
returned to the Moravians in 869-70 to organize the church in the areas
Hadrian had entrusted to him, he was imprisoned by Louis’s troops,
who had invaded Ratislav’s kingdom when it came into conflict with
Louis; Methodius was charged with exercising illegal jurisdiction in
these lands. Such a charge was a grave blow from Louis against Hadrian
who had given Methodius his jurisdiction.

The life’s last hints about relations with the Carolingians are made in

108. HADRIAN II

255

the account of Hadrian’s consecration as pope: Theutgaud of Trier was
admitted to communion, c. 10 (Gunther of Cologne is not mentioned).
This reflected a possible compromise with king Lothar, whose divorce
from Theutberga and marriage to Waldrada, with the approval of the
two archbishops, had been so firmly opposed by Nicholas; further
details of the case, which was terminated by Lothar’s death in August
869, are given in n. 25. Readers may judge whether Hadrian’s attitude
was one of weakness or of sensible compromise. Another ongoing sore
in the Carolingian realms, Hincmar’s concern over the clerics ordained
by his deposed predecessor Ebbo, was one with which Hadrian had no
patience: in a letter {Ep. 7, J2902, 23 February 868; cf. AB 868 Nelson
144) brought from Rome by bishop Actard to Charles the Bald at
Senlis, Hadrian thanked the king for restoring the clerics and insisted
that the whole question of Ebbo was to be consigned to silence. Actard,
who had objected to remaining in his own bishopric of Nantes which
was infested by the Northmen, was (to the annoyance of Hincmar, PL
126.218-221) to be found a new bishopric, and in recompense for his
merits and his exile Hadrian granted him the pallium {Ep. 9, J2904, 25
February 868). The questions of Ebbo and Actard were thus laid to rest
precisely as Charles the Bald wanted. But Hadrian also wanted good
relations with Hincmar, and was careful to write him a letter full of
praise {Ep. 10, J2905, 8 March 868), urging him to continue in his
region, with Hadrian’s own authority, Nicholas’s policies on the then
still ongoing question of Lothar’s divorce.

Lothar’s death opened the complex matter of the succession in
Lotharingia (Lorraine), to which the LP has not a single allusion. Louis
II believed his claim was well-grounded, and he relied on Hadrian’s
support. On 5 September 869 the pope wrote four letters in an attempt
to impose this solution {Epp. 16-19, J2917-20): the nobles and the
bishops of the kingdom of Lothar’s nephew, Charles the Bald, and
Hincmar, were to stop Charles invading Lothar’s kingdom as this now
belonged to Louis II; Lothar’s nobles were to keep their faith with
Louis II as the legitimate heir. But Hadrian’s action was preempted by
the coronation at Metz on 9 September of Charles as king of Lorraine,
long before Hadrian’s envoys, bishops Paul of Populonia and Leo of
Sabina, could reach Charles. When the addressees of Hadrian’s letters,
including Hincmar, received them, it seems they could not be bothered
to reply (cf. AB 869 Nelson 164).

The next year Hadrian tried, with Louis II, to intervene again and
more decisively. A series of six letters, dated 27 June 870 {Epp. 21-6,
J2926-31), instructed Charles to renounce Lorraine, Charles’s bishops
and Hincmar to see that he did so, and the bishops in Louis the

256

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

German’s kingdom to encourage Louis to stay at peace with Hadrian’s
candidate Louis II. But Hadrian had misjudged Louis the German, who
was like Charles a nephew of Lothar, and thought a different outcome
to the Lotharingian question was preferable. Even if the envoys (Wibod
of Parma, the imperial envoy at Rome, and count Bernard of Verona
were Louis IPs envoys; Hadrian’s were John and Peter, bishops of
unknown sees, and a priest John) had arrived in time, it is doubtful if
Hadrian’s letters would have affected the outcome. Some two months
before they arrived Charles and Louis the German, by the treaty of
Meersen, partitioned Lothar’s territory between themselves. At least this
time Charles and Hincmar vouchsafed Hadrian a reply. What Charles
said is not known, but Hincmar’s reply survives: he claimed that the
new arrangements accorded with the unanimous wishes of the clergy
and nobles from all of France who had gathered with him at Rheims,
and in effect told the pope not to meddle in secular matters that were
none of his business. On the same occasion, and with as little success,
Hadrian had protested at the ordination, when Rome had not been
consulted, of Willibert as archbishop of Cologne (cf. Ep. 27, J2932, 15
July 870; AB 870 Nelson 168-70; AF 870 Reuter 64). Charles sent
envoys to Rome with gifts for St Peter {AB 870 Nelson 171), as peace-
offerings to Hadrian perhaps, or as an affirmation that however he
disagreed with St Peter’s successor all was well between him and St
Peter. Hadrian’s ineffectual intervention over Lorraine was attributed by
the next pope, John VIII, in one of his early letters to Charles {Ep, 6,
J2961, MGH Ep 1211), to Hadrian’s continuous illnesses.

Another cause of strained relations between Charles and Hadrian was
the case of the former’s son Carloman, a deacon of the diocese of
Meaux. Carloman had been excommunicated for his behaviour as the
leader of brigands in northwest France and had been imprisoned by his
father at Senlis in spring 870. The papal envoys to Charles did at least
manage to secure his release {AB 870 Nelson 171). Carloman came to
Rome, where through the influence of Louis II he gained the support of
Hadrian. On 13 July 871 the pope sent three letters {Epp. 31-3, J2940-2)
to Charles, his nobility, and his archbishops (including those in what
had been Lothar’s kingdom: the pope had accepted the fait accompli).
Charles was accused of behaving savagely against his son, who was to
be restored to favour and given back his benefices until his case was
dealt with by papal envoys; the nobles were threatened with anathema
if they did not do their best to secure peace between Carloman and his
father; and the bishops were told not to excommunicate Carloman while
he was appealing to Rome.

In that case Hadrian was clearly having as much trouble asserting

108. HADRIAN II

257

authority over a cleric (who happened to be royal) as he had had when
he attempted to interfere in what was really purely a secular matter, the
Lotharingian succession. Another ecclesiastical dispute also brought
about conflict. In 868 Hincmar bishop of Laon, and nephew of his
namesake at Rheims, who had quarrelled with Charles the Bald and with
his own uncle about the extent of royal rights over church property, had
sent to Rome (with arguments based on the Forged Decretals) and
gained Hadrian’s support: the pope wrote to both Charles and Hincmar
of Rheims (Epp. 14-15, J2911, 2910, cf. AB 868 Nelson 152) telling
them not to harm his bishopric while he came to Rome. This approach
to Rome annoyed Charles, and was seen by Hincmar of Rheims as
threatening his own metropolitan authority over his nephew. It is not
clear whether Hincmar of Laon did visit Rome at this time; in 869
Hadrian wrote to Hincmar of Rheims (Ep. 20) about his treatment of his
nephew; but in the spring of 871 he wrote to the nephew (Ep. 30,
J2938) that he should remember that he was subject to his uncle the
archbishop, and should not delay his own promised visit to Rome.
Charles’s reaction was to summon a council at Douzy in August 871,
at which the archbishop deposed the nephew (and Actard was given an
archbishopric, that of Tours). On Charles’s behalf Hincmar wrote sternly
to Hadrian, in effect defying the pope to overrule a council legitimately
conducted. Hadrian replied (Epp. 34-5, J2945-6, 26 December 871) to
Charles and the bishops who had convened at Douzy: he accepted
Actard’s appointment, but he sharply rejected the deposition of Hincmar

of Laon. This bishop and an accuser were to appear before Hadrian who
would decide the matter in a full council of the Roman church.

Hincmar of Rheims again replied for Charles, attacking the pope’s
language against a king whose title came from God, asserting the
validity of Douzy and the irrelevance of papal authority in such a
question, and proclaiming that, should Louis II allow it, Charles would
come in person to Rome as accuser of the bishop of Laon (PL
124.88Iff). When Actard brought this letter to Rome the sequel was
extraordinary. Hadrian announced that he had never heard either of the
council of Douzy or of his own letters against which Charles had taken
offence. He wrote secretly to Charles, claiming that these letters had
either been forged in his name or extorted from him when he was ill.
He no longer regarded the bishop of Laon as he had done before. Of
course, the bishop had a right of appeal to Rome, but only on
procedural grounds, and if he did appeal judges would be chosen from
his own province, or instead Hadrian would send his own envoys with
power to pronounce on the appeal. This was not how Nicholas would
have acted. Hadrian left Hincmar of Laon to whatever fate his uncle and

258

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

his king had in mind for him. It was no doubt true that Hadrian’s letters
on this affair, as on the Lotharingian question and on Carloman, were
drafted by Anastasius and in phraseology that Charles regarded as
impertinent; how far Anastasius had really acted without informing his
master is difficult to know. The clue to what may have been, even at the
cost of diminishing papal prestige in France and of disowning his own
secretary, a volte-face by Hadrian himself lies in the promise he added
that when Louis II died (he had no sons) Charles could take the imperial
title (Ep. 36, J2951).

But Louis II still had some years to live. His concerns in Hadrian’s
lifetime were the defence of Italy against the Saracens, and, for a time,
to see to his daughter’s marriage into the eastern imperial family (cf. n.
104). Basil sent Nicetas the patrician to Bari with 400 ships to aid Louis
in his siege of the city and to bring back Louis’s daughter. But Louis
changed his mind on the marriage, Nicetas departed, Louis abandoned
the siege and was chased by Saracens who captured 2000 of his horses.
Before returning to Bari, they used these to sack the sanctuary of St
Michael on Mt Gargano; Louis’s failure caused much anxiety to Hadrian
and others at Rome (AB 869 Nelson 162). Louis eventually stormed
Bari on 2 February 871, only to meet with further humiliation when
Adalgis led Benevento in revolt (cf. n. 57). The pope gave Louis what
support he could: he absolved him from the oath that had been extorted
from him never to set foot in Benevento or to wreak vengeance for
what he had suffered there; and on 18 May 872 he crowned him at St
Peter’s, to show his continuing support for the imperial status of one
who, it may be supposed, had literally lost his crown along with the rest
of his treasure to Adalgis. The Roman nobles held an assembly at which
they declared Adalgis a usurper and a public enemy. But Louis may
have felt that their support and that of Hadrian could have taken a more
practical form.

108. HADRIAN II

259

108. 1. HADRIAN [II; 14 December 867 - c. 24 November 872], 1 of
Roman origin, son of Talarus who was later a bishop, 2 of the 3rd
region, 3 held the see 5 years. He was closely descended from the family
of the pontiffs of blessed memory Stephen IV and Sergius the younger
[II]. When he was accomplished in wondrous actions, he was allotted
the ministry of the subdiaconate by Gregory IV of venerable memory,
prelate of the apostolic see. He was taken into his household in the
Lateran patriarchate, and as his behaviour was praiseworthy he was
ordained priest to rule Christ’s confessor and pontiff St Mark’s titulus' 4
so blamelessly did he live, so manfully did he minister, that everyone
reverently regarded him as not merely a new-made priest but a future
pontiff. Such great confidence did he have in Christ and his Mother, at
whose Manger he devoted himself to continuous prayers, that he did not
fail in doing well, nor was he afraid he would incur any loss while he
very quietly gave away all he was able to possess. 2. One day, along
with his fellow-priests he received the customary 40 denarii 5 from holy
pope Sergius, returned to his house and meant to go indoors, but
because of the crowd of pilgrims which had as usual confidently flocked
there as to a public granary he was utterly unable to do so. He was
moved by pity and remarked to his squire that he wanted nothing to do
with such a paltry number of denarii when so many brethren had none.
As he reckoned that all the denarii could not be enough for even a third
of the poor, he said: ‘By the power of Christ who filled 5000 men from

1 Hadrian II was certainly consecrated pope on Sunday 14 December 867 (c. 9); the day
of his death is not recorded, but his archdeacon and successor John VIII was consecrated
in 872, also on Sunday 14 December (AB 872 Nelson 180). Hadrian’s last dated document
is 13 November 872 (J2952, a privilege to the bishop of Arezzo). Duchesne suggested that
John might have succeeded the very day that Hadrian died; this, though not quite
impossible, is improbable, and ‘5 years’ in the LP is likely to be a rounded figure (it must
have been added afterwards to the text, as the life breaks off unfinished at the very end
of 870). For what it is worth, the catalogue in MS Paris 5140 gives Hadrian 4 years 11
months 10 days (i.e. to about 24 November 872); while Vat. 3762 (the MS of Petrus
Guglielmus) gives 5 (read 4?) years 11 months 12 days.

2 Presumably Talarus bishop of Mintumae, known from his attendance at the Roman
council of 853; the next conciliar list (for 861) has no bishop from that see.

3 The 3rd ecclesiastical region contained S. Clemente (97:64), and S. Martino ai monti
(34:33, BP 26) which the LP places next to Trajan’s baths, in the 3rd civil region
according to the fourth-century Regionary Catalogues. The 3rd ecclesiastical region
therefore coincided at least in part with the 3rd civil region (Isis et Sarapis).

4 It was as priest of this titulus that Hadrian signed at the council of 853. Since c. 4 states
that (in 867) he was in his 25th year as a priest, he was ordained in 842-3.

5 An example of the distributions called presbyteria\ cf. 98:2 with n. 6.

260

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

five loaves and two fish, 6 I will disburse not one denarius but three to
each’. So saying, he went up outside the door and taking them from his
squire’s hand, he disbursed three denarii each to all the pilgrims as they
went out. When the squire marvelled at this abundance, not merely that
the denarii did not run out but that some were left over, the generous
priest ended by taking what was left over and additionally bestowing
three coins apiece to the multitude of his household. But when six were
still left over, [he said:] ‘You see how bountiful and good is the most
almighty Lord, who has distributed the quantity of 40 coins in threes to
our brethren and has kept three for you and three for me as a fair
share’.

3. He was a man of such great hospitality and bounty that in this he
can be compared not unjustly with blessed Job. Kindness grew with him
from childhood, came forth with him from his mother’s womb. He
would not scorn the passer-by for having no clothing but would surely
warm him with the fleeces his own sheep provided; nor would he eat
his morsel alone when he could eat it with orphans and the needy. He
was esteemed as an eye for the blind and a foot for the lame, and, to
relate his manifold virtues briefly, he was the father of the poor and the
comforter of the widow’s heart, he opened his door to travellers, and
did not close the gate of his house on those who sought anything from
him. The result was that every rank of the clergy and all the unanimous
assembly of senate and people would have forced him to take on the
supreme pontificate both after the death of pope Leo IV and after the
demise of pontiff Benedict III, had he not modestly evaded it with
various arguments and shrewd 7 excuses.

4. But when holy pope Nicholas of apostolic memory had departed
this human life, and Hadrian was passing his 25th year as a priest, all
the city of Rome’s citizens and all those from abroad who chanced to
be present, poor and rich alike, both the order of the clergy and the
whole crowd of the people of every age, occupation and sex, spuming
all his excuses, wanted Hadrian and yearned that he be given them as
prelate and pastor. No one in the whole wide world was found, unless
he wanted the promotion of himself or his own favourite, who did not
long in his inmost heart for Hadrian to be promoted to this pinnacle.
Though the dignitaries were as usual physically divided into two
factions, 8 they burned for him with one mind and equal ardour, for it

6 Matthew 14.13-21, Mark 6.31-44, Luke 9.10-17, John 6.1-13.

7 Does the author mean, or imply, ‘disingenuous’? Hadrian may have wished to avoid
blocking the imperially-backed candidates, Anastasius in 855, Nicholas in 858.

8 The theme occurs in the LP as early as 686 (85:1, BP 81), and 687 (86:2, BP 83, ‘as

108. HADRIAN II

261

was only great affection and love for this great man that caused their
division: each faction were longing for him to be preferred to
themselves, so that, if one faction loved him, the other faction deeply
hesitated, nor did one faction have the will to hold the other back,
except because it reckoned it was destining its votes for another. 5.
This was all the more so since many of the monks and many of the
religious sacerdotes and faithful laity, with visions sent down from
heaven, had already for a long time not only had no doubt that Hadrian
would be pontiff but were even proclaiming him openly. Some among
them had seen 9 Hadrian reclining on the apostolic throne with the
pallium drawn over his shoulders, others had seen him celebrating mass
with the apostolic insignia, a number had seen him disbursing gold coins
in the Lateran basilicas 10 in the apostolic fashion, 11 and many had beheld
him with the pontifical pallium mounted on the horse which holy pope
Nicholas had ridden for going to St Peter’s, returning to the City and
entering the patriarchate with the Worthies preceding him and the rest
of the crowds in his train. When these signs became clear, both factions
displayed their love for this same man, and there was such great unity
of minds and bodies for him that they all had a single heart and spirit
towards the Lord’s same sacerdos. As a result he can be called, saving
reverence for Jesus Christ our Lord, ‘the cornerstone’, 12 since by his
appearance, and certainly by his advancement, he has ‘broken down the
hostility’ of hearts and has ‘made both one’. 13

6. So when all were gathered, the bishops with the whole clergy and
the City’s dignitaries with their compliant people, he was seized and
taken from God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary’s church called
Praesepe 14 and eagerly brought by the crowd of dignitaries and people

usually happens’); for violence see the end of c. 9. It is clear that the attitude Hadrian,
once elected, was to take to the critics and supporters of Nicholas’s actions was a very
delicate one. The LP seems to mean here that each side would support Hadrian if they
knew in advance that the other side would do so. But (cc. 14-15) there was a significant
faction which, at any rate soon after, saw Hadrian as undesirable.

9 Such visions are a commonplace in hagiography; Duchesne cited Pseudo-Pionius, Life
of Polycarp , c. 22. In this, the 5th-century author has a dove hover round the head of
Polycarp on the eve of his appointment as bishop of Smyrna (in the Letter of the
Smymaeans on Polycarp’s Martyrdom, c. 16, the dove leaves his body at his death, an
incident significantly missing from the text used by Eusebius, HE 4.15).

10 Not the Constantinian basilica of the Saviour (St John Lateran), but basilicas inside the
Lateran patriarchate, such as those named after Vigilius, Theodore, etc.

11 Duchesne thought that the regular presbyteria of c. 2 were meant.

12 Ephesians 2.20.

15 Ephesians 2.14, 16.

14 Where he was presumably pursuing his devotions at the Manger (it was Advent).

262

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

to the Lateran patriarchate. The prince’s envoys’ 5 heard this and took it
ill, indignant not because they did not wish for this great man as pontiff
- in fact they wanted him very anxiously - but because, though they
were present, the Roman Citizens did not invite them and agree to their
involvement in their intended election of the prelate to be. When they
heard the reason, that this omission was not done out of despite for the
Augustus but entirely with an eye to the future, in case a custom of
waiting for the envoys of princes at the election of Roman prelates
might be fuelled in this way and take root, 16 they laid to rest all the
indignation they felt, and they too humbly approached to hail the one
elected. 1, When they were going up and down to the Lateran
patriarchate, they were beset with such shouting from all the people
clamouring that the man they had long wanted should be given them for
consecration, that none of them could hear what was being said by his
colleague talking with him. For in regard to the pontiffs consecration 17
[it was clear] to one and all [that they neither] possessed [any other man
with such religious humility] or such efficacious love, nor had they seen
nor did they reckon they would see one anywhere. Then they were all
eagerly striving to seize this man in the presence of those envoys 18 and
to drag him and anxiously bring him to be promoted to the supreme
height of the pontificate, only they were calmed somewhat by the
senators’ allurements and advice.

8. The Christian emperor Louis heard that they all unanimously
desired it, and also learned how they had confirmed the decree for him
with their signatures. He rejoiced greatly and yearned in his inmost
heart that the Lord’s great servant should be prelate for the Christian
people, as he was desired by and desirable for all races, 19 both Romans
and different foreigners. Then he wrote an imperial letter in praise of all
the Romans for selecting a prelate worthy of such great office; in it, he
let it be known that no promise to pay anything in any way was to be

15 The princeps is the emperor Louis II.

16 The Constitutio of 824 gave the emperor and his envoys no role in the actual election.
But when the candidate was elected, the proceedings, if they seemed in order, were
approved by the emperor’s envoys; if these were absent there would be a delay (103 n.
11). But from the viewpoint of 867, at the previous papal election (858) it was not merely
the envoys but Louis II himself who had been present, not just at the ordination but (to
all intents and purposes) at the election (107:5 and n. 8).

17 Some words are missing in the text; I translate Dr Cheesman’s neat suggestion: certum
se nec alium hominem vel lantam ... (e.g. religion is humilitatem).

18 The people clearly thought that the envoys would try to block the election.

19 The writer has in mind the only occurrence of desideratus in the Vulgate (‘The Desired
of all nations shall come’, Haggai 2.8), used in the Advent liturgy (in December).

108. HADRIAN II

263

made to anyone for his consecration, as he ardently desired this to take
place not at the prompting of his own men, but rather because he was
moved by the unanimity of the Romans; especially since, he said, he
was anxious that what had been stolen should be restored, not stolen,
from the Roman church, and that nothing should be lost. 20

9. So when the prayers, vigils and almsgiving had been duly carried
out on Saturday, on Sunday as is the custom 21 this venerable holy man
was taken by them all to St Peter prince of the apostles’ church; and on
14 December in the 1st indiction [867] in the 19th year of the said
emperor, he was worthy to receive in the Lord’s name the blessing of
the supreme pontificate through reverent bishops. These were Peter of
Gabii, Leo of Silva Candida, and, in the third 22 place, Donatus of Ostia,
because the bishop of Albano 23 had died, while Formosus of Porto had
been despatched by blessed pope Nicholas to preach and give instruction
to the Bulgarians. It was a comfort for holy church’s many sons, who
were being driven into various exiles 24 and troubled by different
problems through the tyranny of factious men, which was raging more
freely than usual between one pontiffs decease and his replacement by
another. 10. Indeed, at the celebration of his mass there was such an
unbelievable multitude that, while they all eagerly strove to
communicate from his hand, Theutgaud archbishop of Trier 25 and

20 The last part of the sentence is obscure. It may mean that the right to free election of
a pope had been stolen from the Romans and Louis wanted them to have it back.

21 This is the first explicit reference in the LP to this being the custom; as far as is known
no exception had ever occurred, nor did it do so until the time of Gregory VII, from
which time a high feastday was held to be an adequate substitute for a Sunday.

22 The bishop of Ostia was the principal consecrator. The explanation for ‘third place’ is
that the three bishops each read a prayer in ascending order of dignity and the third place
was the place of highest honour. See, e.g.. Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum (ed.
Foerster), 111, 209, 315 (V57 = C56 = A51), which explains that after the litany the
bishop of Albano said the first prayer, the bishop of Porto said a prayer, the gospels were
brought and held by deacons over the head of the pope-elect, the bishop of Ostia then
consecrated him, the archdeacon gave him the pallium, and the pope went to the throne,
gave the Peace to all sacerdotes , and said the Gloria.

23 Not the disreputable Benedict (104:40ft), brother of Sergius II and therefore a relative
of Hadrian (c. 1), but Petronacius (who was bishop by 853; cf. 105:92, 106:16) or a
successor of his.

24 Cf. c. 13 with n. 33, and c. 20 with n. 54.

25 This is the last reference in the LP to the archbishop of Trier whose support, with that
of Gunther of Cologne, for Lothar IPs divorce had caused problems in the previous
pontificate; both archbishops had been deposed on 30 October 863 (107:49). Both were
present now because they had been summoned by Arsenius, ‘a man of great cunning and
excessive greed’ who ‘deceived them with false hopes of their restitution, in order to
extract money {xenia) from them. They stayed in Rome for a long time, and lost nearly
all their supporters’ (AB 867 Nelson 142). While in Rome, Theutgaud stayed in St
Gregory’s monastery on the Clivus Scauri (John the Deacon, Vita s. Greg., 4.95). At some

264

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Zacharias bishop of Anagni 26 who had been stripped by lord Nicholas
and had been deprived of communion, and also Anastasius 27 who had
long been stripped of the priesthood by the pontiffs Leo and Benedict
and had been wont to communicate among the laity, received the
church’s communion under a suitable penance.

11. So he then returned to the Lateran patriarchate, and he outlawed
its custom by which, of the various gifts 28 that flow in from here and
there, only those were kept which would suffice for the needs of tables,
while the rest were sold for money. He said: Tt is not godly that we sell
for money what we receive for nothing, and that we hold lifeless coins
dearer than our living brethren for whom Christ’s blood is the ransom;
but, 1 pray, let this shameful trafficking in precious objects be reckoned
of less account; let us divide Christ’s offerings among his guests and the
needy for whom we know God grants them to us, so that what we
receive without pay we may also bestow without pay in accordance with
the Lord’s command’. 29

12. His predecessor pope Nicholas of sacred memory had bidden

point after Hadrian cancelled his excommunication he died in Rome (AB 867). In
February 868, at Louis IPs request, Hadrian lifted Nicholas’s excommunication of
Waldrada ( Ep . 4, J2897). Gunther’s case was more serious than that of Theutgaud: he had
continued to officiate liturgically despite his sentence. He was not yet readmitted to
communion and he nearly died in Rome ( AB ). Lothar, whose divorce the two archbishops
had sanctioned, set out for Rome, but Finding Nicholas had died he went to Benevento to
persuade his brother Louis II to get Hadrian to recognize his marriage to Waldrada, but
although AF (868, 869 Reuter 58-9) claims that Louis would not cooperate and that
Lothar broke off the negotiations for which he had come to Rome and planned to return
home, Hadrian had already agreed to have the question of his marriage reopened at a
synod, though in the meantime he was to take Theutberga back (Ep. 1, J2892). Louis and
his wife Engelberga did persuade Hadrian to meet Lothar at Montecassino; there on 1 July
869 Hadrian received Lothar’s assurance that he accepted Nicholas’s refusal to grant a
divorce, and he gave him communion. There too, Gunther swore that he accepted the
validity of the sentence against him (and so should not have officiated as a bishop); this
put him into the same position that Theutgaud had been in, and Hadrian now readmitted
him to lay communion (AB). Hadrian went back to Rome; Lothar followed him and again
asked about divorce. Aware that he had the support of the Gallic episcopate if he upheld
Nicholas’s policy, Hadrian again agreed that the matter could be dealt with by a synod of
bishops from France, Lorraine and Germany (for further details see AB 869 Nelson 154,
156). The entire affair of the divorce was ended when on his way home Lothar and many
of his entourage died at Piacenza on 8 August 869 (cf. AF 869 Reuter 59).

26 Zacharias had been deposed and excommunicated earlier in 863 (107:42); he had
apparently stayed in Rome (cf. 112:1 with n. 4).

27 On Anastasius see 105:92, 106:6-19, and pp. 104-6, 250-2.

28 By a curious coincidence the LP, which has so often mentioned gifts, here alone
employs the word xenia , used of the gifts that/45 (n. 25) claims Arsenius wanted to extort
at this very time.

29 Matthew 10.8.

108. HADRIAN II

265

bishops Dominic and Grimuald 30 go to the country of the Bulgarians and
had sent them off at the very moment of his decease, but in view of the
death of so great a father they had delayed leaving. So he forthwith sent
them to carry out the same mission, with certain of the letters 31 he had
chosen for despatch to show that he had the same intention and
enthusiasm, and which he instructed to be titled with his own name; so,
as far as the season of stormy weather would allow, as a dutiful heir he
fulfilled a dutiful father’s prayer.

13. When these were sent away from the city, he straightaway
endeavoured to ask from the emperor’s gentleness, with many
documents and letters, 32 for the exiles Gauderic bishop of Velletri,
Stephen bishop of Nepi and John sumamed Hymmonides; 33 by a
shameless calumny they had been accused before the serene emperor
and had been outlawed from house and homeland. For he said he could
not be a good shepherd to God’s church unless he had brought back the
sheep that an unfaithful man had by his stealth outlawed from the faith
of holy church. The emperor, with his Christian wife, 34 was gladdened
by this religious request, and he not only honourably sent back to the
city those on whose behalf the supreme pontiff had written, but he also
gave orders that all whom anyone had through private animosity
confined in workhouses on charges of treason against the emperor were
to be discharged and let go home.

14. After this the supreme pontiff, to fulfil his predecessor’s vow,
adorned the Nicolaitan basilica 35 with various pictures; holy pope
Nicholas had so splendidly raised it from its foundations with three
artificial water-channels, that it surpassed all the Lateran basilicas in its
beauty. And he followed the precedents of his behaviour so skilfully
that holy Nicholas’s enemies, since they were trying totally to wreck all
he had done, both in writing and in open speech commonly called him

50 Cf. 107:74-5; Nicholas had in fact intended Dominic to go on to Constantinople.

31 The letters do not survive. Note here again that the author is familiar with details on
the writing and despatch of papal letters.

32 Hadrian’s letter to Louis II does not survive.

33 Hence the references in c. 9 to those who had suffered exile; and cf. 20. Duchesne
suggested that these three had been exiled while the see was vacant by Lambert duke of
Spoleto (c. 20); if so, either Lambert had not been (at least in this respect) acting as an
agent of Louis II, or Louis II was now prepared to make a conciliatory gesture. Stephen
of Nepi would play an important role as one of Hadrian’s legates to the Fourth Council
of Constantinople (cc. 34ff). On the significance of the mention of John Hymmonides
(John the Deacon) by name see p. 249.

34 Engelberga.

35 Cf. 107:81 with n. 163.

266

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

‘the Nicolaitan’. 36 15. He knew that a number of these enemies were
going to pour out the sorrow they had conceived and bring injustice to
birth, but as a steward he was keeping them under his own control like
tares 37 among the com until the time of ripening; so, thanks to a rumour
that arose to deceive, 38 it was believed he intended to overturn all the
acts his predecessor had with God’s zeal authorized, but which his
enemies were lambasting as much as they pleased. Hence it came about
that all the bishops of the western districts, in the solemn and honorific
letters 39 they were issuing, continuously impressed on the supreme
pontiff that his memory was to be revered as that of a pontiff of
orthodox and true philosophy.

16. When certain of God’s servants, 40 Greeks and other races, who

36 ‘Nicolaitan’ is a slur based on the Nicolaitan heretics mentioned in Revelation 2.6,15.
The ‘enemies of holy Nicholas’ were, Duchesne suspected, Arsenius and his faction, the
most devoted partisans of imperial authority. Arsenius is evidently intended in the next
chapter’s references to those in the pope’s close company who were secretly nourishing
pernicious schemes that the pope knew of but did not wish to fight prematurely. On Louis
IPs behalf, Arsenius wanted to reach an agreement on the question of Lothar’s divorce
and the status of the two archbishops (cf. n. 25). The rumour was that he was using his
influence to have Hadrian quash Nicholas’s acts, an exaggeration which it may have suited
Anastasius and his party to spread. But the reality was that Anastasius had been Nicholas’s
adviser and secretary and cannot have intended a blanket condemnation of that pope’s
acts: indeed Anastasius wrote to Ado of Vienne, to provoke the campaign mentioned here
in favour of Nicholas’s acts [PL 129.741); cf. Lapotre 1885:218 f.

37 Matthew 13.25 etc.

38 The author avoids saying that Hadrian himself was responsible for a deceptive rumour
designed to produce precisely the reponse mentioned in the next sentence!

39 Not surviving, but one of Hadrian’s replies (Ep 13, J2907, 8 May 868; perhaps drafted
by Anastasius) reflects the letter he had received from Ado asking him not to alter
Nicholas’s decrees, and shows how Hadrian grasped an opportunity to emphasize his view
of Nicholas: ‘So we praise what you encourage about safeguarding intact the Roman
church’s privileges and the decrees of my predecessor pope Nicholas of apostolic memory,
what you urge we acknowledge, what you advise we thoroughly approve. Indeed so far
are we from in any way letting that pontiffs acts be annulled, that we regard him as like
some new star that appears after great lengths of time amid the clouds of the present life,
as one who by the splendour of his life and teaching, with God as author, drives away the
darkness of errors, as one who both did and taught not what was to be abolished but what
was to be imitated.’ With that description of Nicholas cf Hadrian’s speech to the synod
of Rome in 869 (Mansi 16.123): *... how in the murky course of this dark age he
eventually appeared like a new star’. Hadrian approves of his predecessor’s zeal and his
own policies will be the same, though in some matters Nicholas’s decrees while not being
broken may need modification. Cf. Ado, Chron ., in MGH SS 2.323. Already in Ep. 3,
J2894, 2 February 868, Hadrian had approved the decisions of synod of Troyes, granted
the pallium to Wulfad of Bourges, and ordered Nicholas’s decrees to be kept. Cf. Ep. 38
in which on 1 August 868 Hadrian assured Ignatius he would always keep to Nicholas’s
decrees in his favour.

40 These Greek and oriental monks are adversaries of Photius, supporters of Ignatius and
therefore supporters of Nicholas’s policies. One of them was Theognostus (c. 35). They
are afraid, in view of the rumour in c. 15, that Hadrian will abandon Nicholas’s policies.

108. HADRIAN II

267

were staying in Rome at the time privately withdrew 41 for some days
from association with this holy pope Hadrian, on Septuagesima Friday 42
this supreme bishop according to custom invited a greater number than
usual to take refreshment. In humility he personally poured water over
the hands of them all, he set the meal, he served the cups, and, to make
them more disposed to take part in the luncheon, he did what he knew
no pontiff before himself had done: he reclined with them, joining in
with them in praising God with hymns and spiritual chants, [going
through] the whole vast company of them there as they kept up a
constant chorus [of praise]. 17. When he had risen from the banquet he
prostrated himself before them all, saying: ‘I ask you and humbly pray
you, fathers, brethren and sons, to pour forth prayers to the Lord for his
holy catholic and apostolic church, to pray for our Christian son the
emperor Louis Augustus that almighty God may make subject to him
the race of the Saracens for our everlasting peace, 43 and to pray also for
me who am frail and weak that Christ, who entrusted the rule of all he
had redeemed to St Peter the apostle, may give me strength to rule the
great multitude of his church in holiness and righteousness, 44 so that
though I am blinded by the dust of the world’s cares and for the most
part see spiritual things not very clearly, 45 your unceasing prayer, which
is the purer for being further distanced from the world’s pollution, may
gain me support from God’. 18. And when they clamoured that it was
more appropriate for him, rather than themselves, to pour forth the
prayers, as he was held the more acceptable before God the more he
alone was fervent in his labour for all, he was moved with kindness
within and spoke tearfully: ‘Since praying for the truly good, dearly
beloved, is an act of thanksgiving to God, I ask that you keep the lord

When their demonstration took place, Photius had already been deposed (23 November
867), two months after the death of Michael III and the accession of Basil. But these
events were not yet known for certain at Rome (cf. 107:76). Louis II, wanting Michael
as an ally in expelling the Saracens from Italy, showed himself favourable to Photius, who
welcomed his advances in the hope that Louis could persuade Nicholas to recognize him.
The monks now thought that Louis’s influence with Hadrian might bring him to recognize
Photius, which would leave them high and dry; cf. Lapotre 1885:215.

41 In spite of Dvomik 1973:45, se suspendissent does not mean that they hanged
themselves. Protest suicide is pointless when secret.

42 Friday after the third Sunday before Lent; 20 February 868. There is no other evidence
that such a meeting was normally held on this day. The LP may mean that the pope
customarily received monks at the Lateran on any date he found convenient.

43 The phrasing is from the fourth of the Good Friday Solemn Prayers, for the emperor;
but the next clause, for the pope, is not from the second of those prayers.

44 Luke 1.75. In general Hadrian is here echoing Nicholas’s view of papal power.

45 Or ‘less clearly’ than the monks do (or, just possibly, than Nicholas did).

268

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

my father and predecessor the holy and orthodox pope Nicholas ever
present in your prayers and so give thanks to God who took mercy on
his church and chose him, and who, to drive out the world’s billowing
turmoil, armed him with the shield of his protection and strengthened
him with the sword of spiritual power’. 46 19. Hearing this, all the
Lord’s servants, those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and
Constantinople, 47 some of whom were engaged in the embassies of the
world’s princes, 48 were for a long time surprised and amazed, and burst
out in a clear voice with the words: ‘Thanks be to God! Thanks be to
God who has arranged that one such as you should be in charge of his
church, you who kept before your eyes reverence for your father and
predecessor, and knew how to shepherd the Lord’s flock with rod and
staff, 49 and how not to overthrow but to fulfil the ancestral covenant.
Thanks be to God! Thanks be to God who has not set an apostate pope
on the throne of his apostle; who has founded his house not on sand but
on solid rock; 50 who has made you succeed holy pope Nicholas and not
depart from his decrees. Let envy retire, let lying rumour depart! To our
lord Hadrian, the supreme pontiff and universal pope decreed by God,
long life!’ - said three times. When his hand had signified silence, the
supreme prelate intoned the words: ‘To the most reverent and orthodox
lord Nicholas, the supreme pontiff and universal pope decreed by God,
everlasting memory!’ - said three times. ‘To the new Elijah, 51
everlasting life and unfading glory!’ - said three times. ‘To the new
Phinehas, 52 the insignia of everlasting sacerdotiumV - said three times.

46 With Hadrian’s view of Nicholas here cf. his letter to Ado (n. 39).

47 At first sight one is struck by the way in which our Roman author manages to list
Constantinople last among the patriarchates, and this in spite of the fact that the council
of 869-70 (canon 21) was shortly to classify the patriarchates in the eastern order of
precedence: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem; Rome had until now
objected to Constantinople being given precedence over Alexandria. On the other hand,
the present text presents all four patriarchates in the reverse order of the new official list;
perhaps the author is working from least to greatest.

48 This is obscure. The monks are pro-Ignatius, many of them in Rome for a number of
years as exiles from Michael and Photius, and can hardly be Michael’s envoys; nor would
there yet have been time for an embassy from Basil to have reached Rome.

49 Ps. 22 (23)1,4.

50 Cf. Matthew 7.24-26, with a subsidiary allusion, of course, to Matthew 16.18.

51 Nicholas is called a second Elijah in the Acts of the Council of 869-70 (Mansi 16.309,
and Anastasius’s version, 16.17, PL 129.28); cf. Regino of Prtim, Chronicon 868: ‘that
he may deservedly be believed to be a second Elijah’.

52 Numbers 25.6-15; Phinehas was the grandson of Aaron; he slew Zimri and Cozbi, an
Israelite and his Midianite woman, ‘through her body’ (other versions of the difficult
Hebrew give ‘in the belly’; but the Septuagint has pi^-cpa and the Vulgate in locis
genitalibus), thus causing God to stay the plague (cf. 1 Macc. 2.26, 54; 1 Cor. 10.8) and

108. HADRIAN II

269

‘To his followers, peace and favour!’ - said three times. 53

20 . Now 54 at the time of the venerable pontiffs consecration, the
duke of Spoleto, Lambert son of Guy, entered the city of Rome like a
tyrant as was his custom, and though it was not in rebellion he gave it
over as if he had vanquished it to his followers for plundering. He sold
the houses of the great for many favours; he spared no monasteries or
churches; he even granted the girls of noble family, whether inside the
city or without, to his followers indiscriminately for ravishing. That was
why, loaded with the complaints of the Romans before the godly
emperors, he lost the dukedom, and as one truly judged by the apostolic
see he incurred the anger of the princes and the odium of almost all the
Gauls. 21. Then the Roman pontiff, delivered from such great tyranny,
deprived them all of ecclesiastical communion, Austald, 55 Walter,
Hilpian, Odo 56 and Theopert with all the other ravishers and plunderers,
until they returned the women seized and made reparation for
themselves in law. Theopert made no difficulty about returning the
woman he had seized; while Austald, a man devoted to God and a
mighty warrior, turned to the prelate, smiting himself, with all humility,
and received his leave to make reparation according to the full pleasure

grant Phinehas ‘the covenant of a perpetual sacerdotium' alluded to in the LP text. The
Vulgate has the incident take place in a brothel. The point is that Nicholas had preserved
orthodoxy from doctrinal contamination just as Phinehas preserved Israel from racial
contamination; the implication that Constantinople was a brothel will have been lost on
the Greeks as the Septuagint locates the incident in a warm place (Kdpivog; the Hebrew,
again, is obscure; RSV ‘inner room’).

53 Such acclamations were common at councils, e.g. at that of 869-70 (Mansi 16.319-320)
they are made to the emperors and empress, then ‘Everlasting memory to pope Nicholas
of Rome; many years to Hadrian’, then to Ignatius and the eastern patriarchs.

54 Duchesne noted that Lambert’s intervention was connected with the troubles during the
vacancy of the see. Lambert was son and successor of Guy (in Latin, Wito) as marchio
or duke of Spoleto (see notes to 104:17 and 104:47) from c. 860 - c. 879. Since 866 he
had headed the Lombard principality of Capua. It is not clear how far his expedition
against Rome was in accordance with Louis IPs wishes; Louis was then in the south,
fighting the Saracens of Bari and Taranto. Lambert’s disgrace did not occur very quickly;
the LP is wrong to attribute it solely to the Romans’ complaints. It actually followed his
involvement with Adalgis duke of Benevento (on whom see Erchampert, Hist. Lang. Ben.
20, 29-38, MGH SSrL 242, 245-9) against Louis II in August 871. On this occasion he
had with him another Lambert, count of Camerino, later called by AB 873 Nelson 183
Lambert the Bald; hence the LP’s allusion just below to the ‘conspiracy of the Lamberts’
(cf. n. 57). Lambert the Bald may have been a close relative of the Lambert count of
Nantes mentioned in AB 844 Nelson 58 (with n. 7) and may have come to be embroiled
in Italian adventures. Lambert the ex-duke of Spoleto was able to recover his duchy after
Louis II’s death (875). On these Lamberts and on south Italian politics at this time Nelson,
AB , 176 n. 15 cites Hlawitschka 1960:59-60, 214 and Wickham 1981:62-3, 153-5.

55 Austaldus , so spelt here in Duchesne’s text, but Aistaldus four lines lower down.

56 Possibly Odo, son of count Robert, mentioned (unnamed) in AB 868, the future (888-
898) king of West Francia.

270

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

of the Romans, and he frequently received also the hope of resuming
communion. Indeed he would have become able to receive it except that
later he was an accomplice in the conspiracy of the Lamberts 57 and he
preferred to flee with excommunicates and rebels and make for
Benevento. 58

22. With matters settled in this way, after Michael the emperor of the
Greeks destroyed the Caesar Bardas, a supporter of Photius, who was,
so they testify, plotting his death, he adopted Basil as his colleague and
made him emperor; 59 and since the new emperor Basil was revered with
great enthusiasm by the catholics as one who always favoured them,
Michael was done away with 60 by his eunuchs, it being unclear whether
this was his son’s intention. Then Basil, with power in his hands,
immediately satisfied everyone that he had not been, as it was reported,
an accomplice in Michael’s death. 23. Then in accordance with what
the Roman church laid down, he expelled the intruder Photius and he
reinstated 61 the patriarch Ignatius in the patriarchate, which was what the
people were striving for; 62 and from each side, that of the patriarch
Ignatius and that of Photius the neophyte, he sent envoys to Rome 63

57 Cf. AB 871 Nelson 175-6: Adalgis and other Beneventans conspired against Louis II
because Louis, at his wife’s instigation (on Engelberga’s role. Nelson 176 n. 14 cites
Odegaard 1951:79), intended to exile Adalgis permanently (Erchampert, Hist. Lang. Ben .,
MGHSSrL 247, says vaguely that the Beneventans rebelled because ‘the Gauls had begun
to persecute them’). Adalgis planned a night attack on Louis, but Louis, his wife, and the
men with him, occupied a strong tower where they held out for three days. The bishop
of Benevento got the Beneventans to agree terms; in return for his giving them solemn
oaths they were to let Louis leave. Louis, his wife and daughter, and the men with them,
forswore all vengeance or reprisals in person or through agents for what had happened,
and Louis was never to take an army to Benevento. So Louis journeyed by way of
Spoleto to Ravenna, but sent to Hadrian to meet him en route and absolve him from his
oath. The two Lamberts believed they were under Louis’s suspicion for what had
happened, so they left him and went to the Benevento region, because Adalgis was their
associate. Louis sent his wife to Ravenna and pursued the Lamberts; but failing to catch
them he began his return to Ravenna.

58 Before turning irrevocably to eastern affairs the writer might have mentioned the
murder of Hadrian’s daughter and her mother by Eleutherius; see pp. 250-2.

59 Bardas was Caesar from 862; his death was 21 April 866 (Theophanes Continuatus
206.13; not in 865 as sometimes given); Basil became coemperor on 26 May 866.

60 23/24 September 867, before Hadrian II became pope; see 107:76 with n. 161.

61 23 November 867.

62 Cf. the remark attributed to Michael III (Nicetas, Vita S. Ignatii , PG 105.528B):
Theophilus (an actor) was his own patriarch, Photius was the patriarch of the Caesar
Bardas, and Ignatius the patriarch of the Christians.

63 Before this embassy, an official letter from Basil, addressed to Nicholas and brought
by the spatharius Euthymius, had informed Rome of the restoration of Ignatius; this is
lost, but Hadrian’s reply survives ( Ep. 37, J2908), evidently written at the same time as
his letter to Ignatius {Ep. 38, J2909). Hadrian stated that he would keep to Nicholas’s
policies, praised Basil for restoring Ignatius, urged him also to recall Ignatius’s supporters,

108. HADRIAN II

271

through his spatharius named Basil, to contend alternately in the
supreme bishop’s presence and, with the support of justice, either to
justify Photius or condemn him for ever. 24. But by God’s judgment
the sea swallowed up Photius’s fine-talking side yet preserved Ignatius’s
plain-spoken side safe, with the imperial envoy; 64 none of the neophyte’s
side escaped apart from a single little monk named Methodius. 65 Later
on he accepted neither Photius for whose side he had come, nor Ignatius
against whom he had come, nor the rights of the universal church to
which he had come; three times he was summoned, three times he was
marked out for his perfidy, once he was anathematized and he departed.

25. It had been to Nicholas that Basil, the emperor’s envoy, and John,
the metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 66 had been sent. They

and commended Theognostus who had been in exile at Rome for seven years and was
now returning with Euthymius; to Ignatius Hadrian expressed gentle surprise that he had
not received from him notification of his restoration, and hoped that Ignatius would use
Theognostus as his particular representative at Rome. The embassy bringing these letters
was slow, hence Hadrian's letters in reply were only dated 1 August 868. Meanwhile Basil
on II December 867 (Mansi 16.47) wrote again to Nicholas (the embassy mentioned
here), taking up his suggestion (107 n. 146) that the Photians and Ignatians should explain
their case in Rome; Basil regarded this as a hearing preliminary to the council to be held
in Constantinople. The point at issue was now no longer the possession of the see but
what was to be done with those whom Photius had ordained or who had subscribed to the
council which had excommunicated Nicholas in 867 (Beck 1969:181).

64 Anastasius in his preface to the Council of 869-70 (Mansi 16.6-7, PL 129.15; cf.
Leonardi 1987) gives the names of the legates and notes the suitability of shipwreck as
the cause of the death of Photius’s legate: ‘So John metropolitan of Sylaeum, who was
also in charge of the church of Perge in Pamphylia, was sent to Rome from the side of
Ignatius, while from Photius’s side there was Peter metropolitan of Sardis, who with the
already-mentioned Gregory ’ (the bishop of Syracuse deposed by Ignatius) ‘had been the
initiator of the church schism; moreover the prince sent the royal spatharius named Basil,
who was to be regarded as intermediary between the two sides before the apostolic see
and as the faithful listener and messenger of what that see had decreed. But Peter, though
he was travelling on a new ship and one which he had selected for himself, suffered
shipwreck and with it a perilous death; and he who had split Christ’s ship, that is the
church, not inappropriately incurred the splitting of his own ship. But the other legates
reached Rome...’. In Ep. 39 (MGHEp 6 at 753.33) to Ignatius, Hadrian commends John
of Sylaeum who on his way to Rome ‘endured infinite perils not only at sea but also
travelling by land’; and in Ep. 40 (at 758.7) to Basil, he commends Ignatius’s legate John,
and Basil the imperial spatharius, who, sent from Constantinople to Nicholas, ‘after they
set out they endured obstructions, as we have learnt, so that on their journey they escaped
hardly any of the perils that Paul lists in his epistles’ (2 Cor. 11.26). These adventures
explain why, though sent before Nicholas’s death was known at Constantinople, they did
not leave Rome until after 10 June 869 (the date of Hadrian’s next letters to Basil and
Ignatius, Epp. 39-40), though Hadrian apologized to Basil that they had stayed at Rome
diutissime.

65 He and his adventures are nowhere else recorded. Now in a minority of one, he
perhaps felt it unwise to defend Photius’s case.

66 False; his see was Sylaeum in Pamphylia: Anastasius (n. 64, stating that he held the
see of Perge as well); confirmed by Hadrian, Ep. 40 (758.4); Ignatius’s Ep. in PL 129.61;
and John’s own subscription to the synod, PL 129.15: ‘John archbishop of Perge in

272

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

presented themselves with adequate humility to this holy pope Hadrian
as he sat with the bishops and the dignitaries in the secretarium of St
Mary Major, according to the custom of the holy apostolic see, and they
presented gifts and letters. 67 These were accepted, and they rendered
manifold thanks to the holy Roman church by whose pains the church
of Constantinople had risen up, cleansed from schism; and after
countless acclamations of praise they spoke with harmonious voice:
‘When your most devoted son the emperor Basil, and the patriarch
Ignatius who has been reinstated by your good offices, ejected the
intruder Photius from the church of Constantinople through your
intervention, they discovered in his archive a book 68 containing
enormous calumnies against the holy Roman church’s character and that
of holy pope Nicholas. As something truly infectious they sealed it up
and utterly ejected it from their city, and they sent it to you as the
supreme head to whom Christ has granted the power of binding and
loosing in heaven and on earth. 69 26. Take it, we pray, and examine it;
observe exactly the fraudulence - though the Constantinopolitans were
guiltless - which our crafty Photius was able to include, from the fact
that he whetted his bold tongue 70 against this holy Roman church ‘which
is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’; 71 and promulgate openly
what God’s church must think about this robbery 72 that he has stealthily

Pamphylia, apocrisiarius of holy Ignatius patriarch of Constantinople’.

67 No detail of this assembly at St Mary Major’s is recorded elsewhere; Jaffi6-Ewald date
it vaguely to 868-869, but it was only shortly before (cf. c. 32) the council held in St
Peter’s not long before 10 June 869. Nicholas’s letters to Gaul had spurred the western
church into presenting a united front against the east, and although this was no longer so
necessary once Basil had removed Photius, the Council of Worms (16 May 868) passed
various canons for the good of the church and gave ‘suitable responses to the stupidities
of the Greeks’, AF 868 Reuter 58. The concern in Rome was now to avenge the synod
of 867 which had excommunicated Nicholas.

68 The book was that of the Acts of the council of 867 (not now surviving). The LP has
never mentioned that council (see 107 n. 160), and now avoids referring to the book as
conciliar acts; see further the canons cited in n. 81, and Anastasius (Mansi 16.5, PL
129.13). Nicetas, Vita S. Ignatii (Mansi 16.257-61), gives details about copies of the acts
which were seized after the fall of Photius. One was his own copy, taken from his
servants who were about to hide it underground; it was adorned with pictures of Ignatius
as antichrist, done by Gregory of Syracuse. Another was taken from the two bishops
(Zacharias and Theodore) whom Photius had charged to take it to Louis II in Italy in the
hope that he would carry out the sentence of deposition on Nicholas. One of these may
be the copy taken to Rome and burnt, and the other that which stayed at Constantinople,
to be burnt by the council of 869-70.

69 Matthew 16.19.

70 Cf. Ps. 63(64) 3.

71 Ephesians 5.27.

72 latrocinium ; the reference is to the ‘Robber-council’ of Ephesus in 449, so termed by
Leo I, and condemned by the council of Chalcedon in 451. Hadrian (Ep. 40, MGH Ep 6

108. HADRIAN II

273

fabricated under the name of a synod.’

27. With the pontiffs permission, the assembly of both sides 73
replied: ‘Because Photius had no right to bring an action, he could
perhaps hurl an opinion against the apostolic see and its pontiff but he
could not deliver a judgment; 74 whereas he has been twice judged and
twice condemned by the apostolic see. And because he was using his
power to climb to higher places and did not fear to prate calumnies
against our holy pontiff Nicholas, he assuredly opposed heaven with his
effrontery and thrust his tongue out across the earth; so we admit his so-
called synod’s book for scrutiny, so that its author may be judged a
third time, as both a fabricator of lies 75 and an inventor of twisted
dogmas’. 28. The metropolitan 76 came forth, produced the book, hurled
it to the ground and addressed imprecations to it: ‘You are cursed at
Constantinople, be cursed again at Rome! The devil’s servant Photius,
the new Simon, the compiler of lying, prepared you; Christ’s servant
Nicholas, the new Peter, the lover of truth, has crushed you!’ And the
spatharius struck the book with his heel and his sword, and also said:
‘I know the devil dwells in that work, because he uses the mouth of
Photius his accomplice to vomit up what he is unable to say on his own.
29. As for its containing, after the signature of Michael whom he
persuaded at night to sign when he was very drunk, the signature of our
emperor Basil, that is a great calumny. 77 His reinstatement of Ignatius
has proved that it is not his, and, if you agree, our giving satisfaction on
oath will confirm it. For as Basil was always catholic, he could not
insert his name in his bestial fabrications other than by forgery, just as
by changing the handwriting he was able to write down the names of
many absent bishops along with his few accomplices. 30. The whole
number of these bishops no more shared in signing it than they were

at 756.29) also calls the council of 867 as detestable as the latrocinium of Ephesus and
as the council of Rimini in 359. The parallel with the latrocinium had also been used by
Nicholas ( Ep. 18 at 285.6) when he condemned the council of Metz.

73 Perhaps the Romans and the easterners; hardly the Photian and Ignatian sides since
Photius was unrepresented (unless Basil, supposedly neutral, is counted).

74 He had no competence to pass his sentence against Nicholas in summer 867.

75 Job 13.4 (Vulgate).

76 John of Sylaeum.

77 It is alleged that Photius persuaded the drunken Michael to sign, and that Basil's
signature was a forgery. Michael III was regularly portrayed under the Macedonian
dynasty as a drunken sot (Ostrogorsky 1969:223). All that follows may be a sham
designed to secure the destruction of the copy of the acts, so that there would be no record
at Rome of the fact that Basil and most eastern bishops had signed in 867: whether or not
they were enthusiasts for Photius, they had all regarded Nicholas's involvement in
Bulgaria as an attack on the whole eastern church, Dvomik 1973:43.

274

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

aware of its contents. Indeed when this so-called council had been
gathered none of the Constantinopolitans acknowledged it, because it
really was not one. But because the provincials come up to
Constantinople, it being the royal city, on the various business of that
kind of city, the headstrong Photius rubbed the medicine of truth into
his lying, just as he had been taught to do from childhood, when in
place of some of the holy bishops 78 he made some of their citizens sign
- though they were renegades, so common rumour has it, and were
blinded with bribes. 31. This is why its signatures seem to be in
different writing; some of them write with quite a sharp quill, some
with a broad one, while a number, to feign old age, write with a broader
one and blot the parchment; in consequence there is deception practised
by the fraud of those present against the ingenuousness of those absent,
and the world at large believes more easily in the genuineness of what
forgery has made look different by using different writing. If you open
the book you will immediately see the differences between the
signatures, though without sending to Constantinople you will never
recognize there has been fraud’. 32. Then the supreme pontiff decreed
that the book was to be examined for several days by experts in both
languages, and that everything contained in it was to be faithfully made
public before the synod.

When it was rigorously examined, the venerable pontiff, with the
assent of the whole gathering of senate and people, summoned a holy
council at St Peter the apostle’s in defence of his church and his
predecessor. 79 First of all the truth of the matter was clearly heard from
the envoys of Constantinople, and he 80 read over his predecessor’s letters

78 Anastasius {PL 129.12, Mansi 16.5) accepted the truth of this charade (last note). He
too alleges false representatives of the eastern patriarchates, about 1000 false signatures,
and only 21 genuine adherents of Photius: ‘he gathered a so-called council under the
emperor Michael’s presidency, he lined up false men as representatives of the easterners,
he armed accusers with bribes and heaped them with lies, he adopted as witnesses those
whom he also brought forward as accusers’ (against Nicholas) *... while all who were
present, except for a very few who were promoters of iniquity, cried out that it was not
right to deliver a sentence against the supreme and first pontiff, and particularly for it to
come from an inferior... he inserted about 1000 false signatures of bishops, though apart
from 21 prelates not one of that numerous crowd of bishops consented or joined in writing
their names’.

79 Hadrian, Epp. 39-40 of 10 June 869, provides the date when the eastern legates left
Rome; it is likely that the council was held not long before this. For the delays cf. n. 64.
Mansi 15.882, 886 wrongly conjectured that the council was before August 868, thinking
it predated Epp. 37-38 of 1 August 868; but these letters do not allude to it, and Ep. 13
of 8 May 868 does not suggest that any envoys of Ignatius were likely to arrive in Rome,
though John metropolitan of Sylaeum was certainly present at it.

80 The translation takes Hadrian, rather than the council, as the subject from here to the
end of the chapter, since, although the remains of the acts contain a long encomium of

108. HADRIAN II

275

on this matter and cleared his unfavourable reputation. Then with a third
anathema he cast down Photius with his assembly and accomplices.
Lastly, with the verdicts confirmed by everyone’s signatures, he
discarded the book of wicked dogma in front of the doors by the steps,
to be trampled under everyone’s feet. 81 33. In fact it was used as
kindling for a bonfire, which consumed it with a big stench and a pitch-
black colour almost before one could have believed it would be half
burnt. When it chanced that there was a deluge of rain which ought
naturally to have put the fire out, the flames gained strength as if the
raindrops were drops of oil, and amazement at this marvel opened the
hearts of both Latins and Greeks in praise of God, of holy pope
Nicholas, and of Hadrian the supreme pontiff.

34. After this he despatched 82 Donatus bishop of Ostia and Marinus 83
the deacon to Constantinople with his predecessor’s letters, just as he
had composed them. 84 To them he added his own letters, headed by his
name alone, 85 and a letter of instructions, and also Stephen bishop of
Nepi. He ordered them to lay skilfully to rest every stumbling-block in
the way of the church of Constantinople; they were to restore to their
own churches those consecrated by Methodius 86 and Ignatius under the
penance in a document they had taken from the church-office; 87 but as

pope Nicholas, it does not seem that his letters were read out. If the council is the subject,
litteras re lege ns here would probably be false.

81 Hadrian’s next letters to Ignatius and Basil ( Epp . 39-40, J2913-14, 10 June 869)
supplement the LP’s account of this council. A summary of the acts survives through
quotation in the acts of the 7th session of the Council of 869-70: Hadrian’s speeches were
read out by archdeacon John and deacons Marinus and Peter, there were interventions by
Gauderic bishop of Velletri and by the notary Benedict, and five canons were agreed: 1)
the Council of Constantinople in 867 is condemned, and all copies of its acts consigned
to the flames; 2) two conventicles held against Ignatius are cursed; 3) Photius is
condemned and anathematized; 4) if those who had signed that council repent they may
be restored to communion by the pope, and Basil is assigned a place among catholic and
pious emperors; 5) any who retain copies of that council are anathematized. Then come
the signatures of Hadrian, John of Sylaeum, 29 bishops and 1 representative of a bishop,
9 priests and 5 deacons (Mansi 16.122-131, 372-80, PL 129.105-116). On the council cf.
DUmmler 1887-8:1.690.

82 Donatus and Marinus had been sent (with a priest Leo) to Constantinople in 866 but
had failed to get through (107:71). They now had a different companion, Stephen.

83 The future pope; for his earlier activities see 107:70-72. It has been claimed that
Marinus was actually Hadrian II’s son, and a brother therefore of the girl killed by
Anastasius’s brother (JafT6-Ewald, 704 addenda to n. 2914). But the papal catalogues are
likely to be right in stating that he was from Gallese, son of a priest Palumbus.

84 Cf. n. 87.

85 Epp. 39-40, J2913-2914, to Ignatius and Basil respectively, dated 10 June 869.

86 Ignatius’s predecessor as patriarch of Constantinople (843-7).

87 Bishops consecrated by Methodius and Ignatius (not by Photius) who had later
recognized Photius are to be reinstated. The text of the libellus ( Prima salus est...) which

276

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

for the Photians, though they were to communicate with them under this
and a more severe penance, they were to prolong the repeated verdict
of the apostolic see on sacerdotes, holy pope Nicholas’s judgment
remaining in force. 88

35. So, betaking themselves round many laborious and tortuous
deviations, with Christ as their guide they came 89 at last to Thessalonica,
to which the emperor Basil had despatched the white-robed spatharius
Eustathius to meet the holy Roman church’s envoys with the task of
giving them his greeting. They led them very honourably along the
neighbouring areas of the route and left them at Selymbria, where they
were received by Sisinnius the imperial protospatharius and
Theognostus 90 the patriarchal hegumenus (who had been a zealous
intermediary before holy pope Nicholas in Rome for Ignatius’s
reinstatement), with 40 horses from the imperial stable and a complete
set of silver tableware, 91 and with officials to serve their every whim.
36. At Castrum Rotundum, 92 in which there is a church of wondrous

they would have to sign is given in the acts of the first session of the council of 869-70
(Mansi 16.27-8 and a shorter version in Greek, 16.316; PL 129.35-7). In a note at this
point in his translation of that council, Anastasius (Mansi 16.29, PL 129.37-8) states that
the document had been prepared for the embassy sent by Nicholas in 866, and that the
only change in 869 was the name of the pope. But the nucleus of the document was much
older: it had been composed by pope Hormisdas as a profession of faith to be taken by
repentant Acacian heretics (LP 54.3, 5, 8, BP 47-48), and its use now was to prove heavy-
handed and tactless.

88 These sacerdotes are bishops and priests who had been ordained by Photius; their
excommunication may be lifted, but they may not officiate as bishops or priests.

89 The compiler now adopts a vivid historic present tense, maintained (but not in the
translation), though not quite consistently, till c. 47.

90 The MSS of LP spell Theognistus. He is mentioned in a letter of Nicholas (Ep. 88,
MGH Ep 6.477.22, J2796, 28 September 865) as having received from Ignatius ‘the task
of being exarch over certain provinces’. In 861-2 he had taken refuge in Rome with other
Ignatian monks. Michael III vainly demanded that Nicholas send him back (cf. summary
of Ep . 88 in 107 n. 146); but he returned to Constantinople only in 868 with Euthymius
(n. 63; Hadrian, Epp. 37-38, J2908-9; Ep. 37 at 748.6 states that he had spent seven years
in Rome). No doubt he was one of the monks who defied Hadrian early in his pontificate
(c. 16). Hadrian’s letters (Ep. 37 at 748.5, Ep. 38 at 749.15) and the acts of the council
of 869-70 call him ‘exarch’, a title often occurring at councils for the head of a group of
monasteries (an ‘abbot-general’). In view of Nicholas’s expression ‘over certain
provinces’, the term ‘patriarchal hegumenus ’ may mean he had authority over all
monasteries in the patriarchate of Constantinople. Hadrian, Ep. 41 at 761.15, calls him ‘a
most wise and religious man, hegumenus and custodian of the sacred vessels’, cf. Basil,
Ep. (PL 129.192): ‘Theognostus... the God-beloved hegumenus... and guardian of the
vessels of the great church’; cf. also Ignatius, Ep. (PL 129.193ff).

91 This provision by Theognostus might seem appropriate, given his former job (end of
previous note); the custos vasorum was now Joseph (c. 37).

92 A place previously mentioned in the LP (54:5, BP 48) in the context of a reception like
the present one, that of pope Hormisdas’s envoys in 519, for which event the LP is the
only account to mention the placename. Comparison of the LP with other accounts of that

108. HADRIAN II

277

size dedicated to the name of St John the Evangelist, by the emperor’s
favour they took lodgings on Saturday. And on Sunday the 15th of
September 93 in the 3rd indiction [869] they each received from the
emperor’s devotion horses with gold saddles, and were met by all the
scholae , those of the white-robed spatharii, the strati , the mandati and
the other palatine orders, and by all the chasuble-wearing orders of the
clergy, and they came to the Golden Gate. 94 37. There they were
greeted by Paul the guardian of the books, by Joseph the guardian of the
vessels, by Basil the sacellarius , and by those clothed in church
vestments, on behalf of the patriarch of Constantinople; these went
solemnly in front of them, while the whole people followed with
candles and lamps; and so they went down to the palace of Irene, 95 and
were laudably received in the house called Magnaura 96 by John the a
secretis and white-robed spatharius and by Strategis the white-robed
spatharius . These had been given the assignment of looking after them;
and through them they received imperial notifications, intimating with
great devotion - there is no doubt about that - that they should not
perchance take it ill that they could not be received the next day, as the

event shows that it was the ETpoyyuXov <|>po\5piov of Procopius, De aedificiis 4.8,
some 10 miles from Constantinople; cf. Janin 1964:454.

93 False (perhaps a gloss or a copyist’s error), since 15 September 869 was a Thursday;
in view of the mention of Basil’s natalicius (see n. 97), read 25 September.

94 The ancient Golden Gate was at the ' Einantf pyiov fortress (Y6di-Koul6).

95 Duchesne suggested that this might have been the name of some building close to the
church of Hagia Irene, north of Hagia Sophia and outside the palace area. But it might be
an alternative name for the palace of Eleutherios, built by the empress Irene; cf. Mango
1985:59, who notes that it was in an elegant quarter constructed at this period amid the
ruins of ancient buildings.

96 The MSS spell Magna Aura. This building, in which the emperor (here, his high
officials) received ambassadors in solemn audience, lay north of the palace complex,
south-east of the Augusteum, immediately south-west of the fourth-century senate (beyond
which was Hagia Sophia, immediately north-east of the Forum Augusteum), see Mtlller-
Wiener 1977:229 (and fig. 263, reproduced in Krautheimer 1983:50, plan 42); cf. Labarte
1861 :no. 116 on plan (reproduced by Leclercq, DACL 2, i (1925), 1410). It may well
have been a 4th-century building, no doubt repaired later. Mango speculates that it may
even have been the original senate-house. Like other buildings in the area it can only be
visualized from literary descriptions, especially the De caerimoniis, as the whole palace
was abandoned in the 12th century, and by 1422 the traveller Buondelmonte found no
traces left. By the early 9th century it was a basilica with central nave and two aisles,
about 50 m by 22 m overall, and fronted by an open portico; two rows of six columns
supported the ceiling; at the far end, a platform occupied the whole width; on this the
imperial throne was placed, approached by steps, and with a half-dome above; columns,
two on each side of the half-dome, supported large curtains which decorated this end of
the chamber; at first-floor level there were galleries for the ladies of the court. Cf. Mango
1959:57-8 and ODB 2.1267-8; Janin 1964:106ff; Guilland 1969:1.141-50; Krautheimer
1983:49.

278

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

emperor’s natalicius was imminent. 97

38. When this had been happily celebrated, the emperor sent all the
palatine orders to meet them. These went ahead of them and they came
before the emperor in the Golden Triclinium , 98 where he immediately
rose to greet them. They presented the apostolic letters to the emperor.
The emperor received them personally and kissed them. He
systematically inquired about the state of the Roman church, about the
health of lord Hadrian the supreme pontiff, and about every order of
churchmen and senators. He kissed the envoys amiably, and gave them
leave to present the apostolic mandate to Ignatius the patriarch. 39. It
was with him that they came back next day to the emperor, who thus
addressed them: ‘The holy church of Constantinople was tom by various
waves of schismatic men through the ambition of the headstrong
Photius. The holy Roman church, mother of all God’s churches, has had
regard for it through the trusty providence of the holy lord and universal
pope Nicholas, as can be clearly understood from his letters, on the
authority of which our present father Ignatius, who had been violently
expelled by the Photians, has recently with the Lord’s help been restored
to his own see. We, with all the eastern patriarchs, metropolitans and
bishops, have for two years been awaiting the judgment of our holy
mother the Roman church; therefore, on God’s behalf, we ask that
God’s business be manfully completed, and that by the authority of your
sacred college the really pestilential stumbling-blocks of Photian
subterfuge may at long last be cast forth; so may the unity and
tranquillity long hoped-for be restored in accordance with holy pope
Nicholas’s decree’.

40. The envoys of the holy apostolic see replied: ‘That is why we
also have come, that is why we have been sent. But there is no way that
we can ever receive any one of your easterners in our synod unless they
present a document to give us satisfaction, the text for which we have

97 Basil cannot have been proclaimed emperor before 23/24 September 867 when Michael
III was killed (cf. 107 n. 161); perhaps 26 September was his official accession-
anniversary.

98 This, the Chrysotriclinos, was the throne-room, located in the south-eastern part of the
palace, and separated from the rest of the palace by the huge gallery called Lausiacos. It
was an octagonal building about 30 m across; the octagon itself was roofed by a cupola
(with 16 glass windows) supported on pendentives, and with a chandelier suspended in
the centre. Each of the eight walls was hollowed to make an apse surmounted by a half¬
dome, and each apse was closed by a curtain hung on a silver beam. The throne was in
the apse at the end, which was closed off by silver-panelled doors. A large cornice with
a balustrade went round the room at the base of the cupola above the arch of each of the
apses. Mosaics covered the walls and the floor (Labarte 1861:no. 95 on plan; Leclercq,
DACL 2, i, 1413; Janin 1964:115-117).

108. HADRIAN II

279

taken from the holy apostolic see’s church-office’. 99 The emperor and
patriarch said: ‘Since you assert this new and unheard of thing about
presenting a document, we must see what its text contains’. With no
delay the text of the document was presented, translated from Latin into
Greek, and shown to everyone to look at. Some of them did present a
document and sat in the holy synod, but those refusing to present one
were left ingloriously outside the synod. 100 But tempered by the fire of
the Holy Ghost, they day by day returned to the holy synod’s unity, first
issuing the satisfaction in a document. 101 41. That intruder Photius was
brought into this synod 102 to render account of the many crimes he had
perpetrated, all the letters of the holy Roman church issued against him
were read, and the verdict of deposition and anathema, formerly issued
by the apostolic see, was time and again hurled at him by everyone. In
his sight the unhallowed tomes of his wicked assembly, in which,
muttering in his gullet, he had yelped against holy pope Nicholas, were
burnt by fire, and the torch of truth and innocence shone bright. For he
had now through the power of reason been reduced to a final silent
inactivity and had entered the snare that in his boasting he had once set
for another; like a blind man at midday he had turned aside from the
door to communion that was open to him, by which, as he was advised,
he could be received if he gave satisfaction in a document.

42. Then, with everything wholesomely done which the text of the
synod contains in its ten sessions, the holy Roman church’s envoys

99 Cf. c. 34 with n. 87.

100 After its expansive treatment of the reception of the envoys, the text now devotes
barely a chapter to the ten sessions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (PL 129.27-
496 has Anastasius’s translation of the acts, also in Mansi 16.16-208, who gives the
shortened Greek acts, 16.308-409). For all its brevity, the LP does record Photius’s
stubborn silence. The Council came to be reckoned in the west as the Eighth Ecumenical
Council (so already ‘by those who attended it’, according to the acts and to AB 872
Nelson 178). As late as the time of Gregory VII (1073-85), Cardinal Deusdedit reckoned
only 7 ecumenical councils, but at that time canonists found canon 22 of this council,
forbidding lay influence in the election of prelates, useful in the investiture controversy,
and reckoned this council as the Eighth Ecumenical, despite the fact that its acts had been
cancelled (and the full Greek version destroyed) by the Photian council of 879-80. The
status and consequential numbering of medieval western councils as ecumenical was only
finalized by Cardinal Robert Bellarmin at the end of the 16th century, mainly to justify
the status of the Council of Trent, Dvomik 1948:314ff, 1966[b]:321-6.

101 The LP is misleading. When the council opened on 5 October 869 only 12 Ignatian
bishops attended; even by the ninth session the number had reached only 66, though 103
were at the tenth and last session (28 February 870), Beck 1969:182.

102 Basil in fact refused to sign the acts of the council if Photius were not given a hearing;
he refused to say a word, and a bishop who tried to put his case for him was cut short by
the Roman legates. Beck 1969:183.

280

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

entrusted the synod’s text, in case Greek fickleness should swinishly 103
interpolate anything false, to Anastasius 104 the librarian of the holy
apostolic see, so that it could be carefully examined before they signed
it. It is believed that it was by God’s providence that he had at that time
arrived at Constantinople after them on the business of our serene
emperor Louis, with Suppo the chief counsellor. 105 It was very zealously
scrutinized by him, since he was most fluent in both languages; and they
discovered that everything that the holy lord pontiff Hadrian had added
in his predecessor’s letter, on bishop Arsenius’s insistence, 106 in praise
of our serene Caesar had been cut out. 107 43. So they complained very

103 Note that Anastasius in his Preface to the acts (PL 129.24, Mansi 16.13) writes: ‘So
in case the cunning of the Greeks, or rather their trickery, swinishly does something also
about the present synod...’

104 Anastasius had presumably by now been reinstated as librarian despite the sentence
against him on 12 October 868 (see p. 251). The LP’s claim that he arrived after the papal
envoys is correct in spite of the statement in AB 873 Nelson 178 that he travelled with
them (Hincmar was not soon aware of these events). He arrived in time for the 10th and
last session of the council, whose acts (PL 129.147-8, Mansi 16.158, not in the Greek)
mention his presence and that of his colleagues: ‘Likewise there took their seats on the
right-hand side the glorious princes and the apocrisiarii of the remarkable Louis, emperor
of the Italians and Franks, namely Anastasius the God-beloved librarian of Rome, Suppo
the leader of the gonfalonieri and cousin of his wife, and Eurard, the steward of his table’.
Anastasius himself relates in his Preface to the acts that he had been sent by Louis II to
arrange a marriage between the eastern and western imperial families. At the council he
will have heard recited the papal letters which he speaks of as his own work (PL 129.17,
Mansi 16.8-9, addressing Hadrian): ‘So when this venerable synod was being held, it
happened that I your servant was present, sent by the pious emperor Louis with two other
notable men, and carrying out an embassy ... arranging the marriage which both sides
were hoping and preparing for, between the emperor Basil’s son and the daughter of the
said God-worshipping Augustus (Louis II). For in such a godly business, one which was
believed without doubt to relate to the unity of both empires, indeed to the freedom of all
Christ’s church, your assent as supreme pontiff was particularly sought. So by God’s will
it happened that I too rejoiced at the conclusion of so great an affair (the council) with
the apostolic see’s representatives, and that I, coming home with shouts of joy, could
bring my sheaves with me (Ps. 125 (126).6). For some seven years I had worked tirelessly
on it, and by writing I had broadcast the seeds of words throughout the world. It was in
obedience to the supreme pontiffs, your predecessor (Nicholas) and yourself, that I
expounded almost everything that relates to the present affair and that has been issued by
the apostolic see in Latin, whether contained in the codex of this synod or in other
volumes. After I chanced to be at Constantinople for the reason I have mentioned, I
provided many comforts for these representatives of yours, as they too bear witness’ (he
then claims further credit for making the copy of the acts which actually reached Rome,
n. 126). Cf. Leonardi 1987.

105 Suppo is called by Anastasius (previous note) ‘first of the gonfalonieri (standard-
bearers)’, and cousin of Louis’s wife Engelberga. On the death of Louis II in 875, he
would support Charles the Bald’s claim to Italy, Nelson, AB , 189 n. 12.

106 Arsenius had died in 868 after his son’s plot against the pope’s daughter. Hadrian was
trying to be rid of his family’s influence, but he apparently stayed on good terms with
Louis, whose envoy at Rome Arsenius was. Cf. 106 n. 9; p. 251; Nelson, AB , 145.

107 As Duchesne noted, it is odd that Anastasius mentions this neither in his preface nor

108. HADRIAN II

281

loudly that the apostolic see’s letter had been tampered with and said
there was no way they would subscribe to what was done in the synod
unless the full text of the whole letter was joined to the synodal acts.
That was how the Romans argued, while the Greeks vociferously replied
that the business of a synod was to praise God alone and not an emperor
- they deeply resent our Caesar’s imperial name. Things came to such
a pass that they signed the decided verdicts less decisively, inserting a
condition about the apostolic will, in these words: ‘I, N., representing
my lord the holy and universal pope Hadrian, and presiding in this holy
synod, have consented to all that is written above as far as it accords
with the will of that noteworthy prelate, and I have signed with my own
hand’. 108

44. This done, 109 some of the Greeks came to the emperor, lamenting

in his notes on the Council (unless ‘I provided many comforts...’, n. 104 at end, alludes
to it). His Latin version of the Greek acts shows that he did not reinsert any of the
passages here claimed to have been suppressed.

108 The quotation is not verbatim. The signatures at the end of the last session read (PL
129.175-6, Mansi 16.189-90, not in the Greek): ‘I, Donatus, by the grace of God bishop
of the holy church of Ostia, taking the place of my lord the supreme pontiff and universal
pope Hadrian, and presiding at this holy and universal synod, have promulgated all things
that are written above as far as they accord with the will of that noteworthy prelate, and
I have signed with my own hand. I, Stephen, by the grace of God bishop of the holy
church of Nepi, taking ... . I, Marinus, deacon of the holy catholic and apostolic Roman
church, taking ...’ (these two legates otherwise using the same wording as Donatus).

109 Anastasius also tells the story of the stolen papers in his notes to the first session of
the Council; he does not mention the conditional clause in the signatures among the
reasons that pushed the Greeks into this exploit, but otherwise his account harmonizes
with the LP. He sets the scene very carefully (PL 129.38-9, Mansi 16.29): ‘But after they
had all signed and handed their signatures to witnesses, some of them rose up and
approached the holy patriarch Ignatius and the godly emperor Basil, and told them
privately that it was something not well done that they had let the church of
Constantinople be subdued to the Roman church with such great subjection that they had
handed it over like a servant to her mistress. These words disturbed the emperor and he
ordered the chief men who had been assigned to the retinue of the apostolic see’s
representatives that, when the latter went with their people to some church, they were to
enter their lodging and remove the signatures surreptitiously, for he utterly refused to
scandalize them openly. So when the representatives, bishops Donatus and Stephen and
the deacon Marinus, had gone for a discussion with the patriarch, the guardians turned
into thieves, got into the house and quietly removed a portion of those numerous
signatures. The representatives returned and discovered this, and their speech to the
emperor included the comment: ‘The loss of the signatures means that we cannot dare
return to Rome, yet you will gain no reward at ail for the state of godliness which has
begun in the church.’ But we who have been here to arrange a marriage contract between
both emperors have sent him a report in these words: ‘It is not fitting for the imperial
power to do what has to be undone afterwards or to undo what is not to be undone. So
since the signatures were made with your consent, if you were wrong to agree, then repent
and undo what you have done, in the open, not in secret. But if you did well to agree that
the bishops should make their signatures as a caution for the future to the apostolic see,
why is it that you repent of what was good and agree to their being taken away and
hidden? But if you say that it was not by your wish that the signatures happened to be

282

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and grumbling that by presenting the documents the church of
Constantinople had been subjected to the power of Rome; they said that,
given the uncertainty of the signatures, everything decreed in the synod
could be overturned, everything could be confounded with recurring
errors, and, so they made out, without getting the documents back they
could not get back their ancient liberty. 45. Immediately some of the
documents were tinkered with by the guardians, though the holy Roman
church’s envoys, foreseeing what would happen, had well hidden the
documents of the more distinguished bishops. At this they 110 were
incredibly alarmed, and they fell back on the ever-reliable help of Suppo
the chief counsellor and of Anastasius the holy apostolic see’s most
eloquent librarian. These brought various pressures to bear and, though
the task was fraught with danger and difficulty, they eventually
managed to get the documents back, but they seriously incurred the
emperor’s anger for the great rigour of their faith.

46. So m three days later, by when the holy synod with its signatures

taken away, our reply is: Then it will clearly emerge that it was not at your wish that this
great crime was committed, when you detain the men you provided as guardians for the
representatives, and rightly compel them to return what was taken away. For if the
representatives have lost anything or suffered anything underhand, the only people obliged
to made restoration or amendment are those to whom, with all their men, the imperial
piety gave the task to guard them reverently and preserve them intact’. But hearing this
the emperor sent for the representatives and returned alt the signatures to them, so that it
was clear that not a single one was missing; he said: ‘It was I who through my legates
approached the apostolic see as a mistress in church affairs and that was why I waited for
you to come here, so that your decision and diligence might cause our church to get the
cure of her sickness and that we might obey your verdict rather than our own impulses.
So, take the signatures which you have wholesomely exacted from our sacerdotes and
from all the clergy, and present them to our spiritual father the holy pope; so that if any
of them try to walk as usual along dangerous and vicious paths or along crooked and
depraved tracks, he may with these reins check them somehow, and with such bridles call
them back to the right path of justice’. At this the representatives happily handed the
documents they had received to us to be carefully taken away.’ Anastasius’s account
continues in n. 126.

110 The Roman envoys.

111 Anastasius (Preface to the Council of 869-70, PL 129.20-21, Mansi 16.11-12) gives
few details of this debate, to which he implies he was not admitted, but he claims that the
emperor had instructed the eastern arbitrators what verdict they were to reach, and that
advantage was taken of linguistic difficulties between Romans, Bulgarians and Easterners:
‘Although the Roman representatives and the envoys of the Bulgarians met with emperor
and patriarch and the representatives of the East, they were all placed in one chamber and
no one from outside had any access unless the emperor or patriarch happened to let him
in. Consequently, neither the representatives of the East nor the Bulgarian envoys
understood anything the Romans stated, and again neither the Roman representatives nor
the Bulgarian envoys understood anything the easterners said; since there was actually no
one present apart from the emperor’s lone interpreter who dared to produce the speeches
of the Romans or the eastern representatives otherwise than as the emperor had already
ordered to achieve the subversion of the Bulgarians; except that a certain writing, made

108. HADRIAN II

283

had been fully completed and edited with all neatness in the church of
St Sophia, they were cunningly summoned by the emperor to the house
where he was residing with the representatives 112 of the patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and with the patriarch Ignatius and
some others. Bidden to take their seats, they were told that the prince
of the Bulgarians had, through Peter and others, sent them letters and
gifts. 113 47. As the emperor was particularly insistent, they received the
Bulgarians’ embassy; and so, after the greeting Peter, envoy of the
Bulgarians, 1,4 began: ‘Lord Michael, the Bulgarian prince, has heard and
joyfully welcomed the fact that on apostolic authority you have gathered
together from various regions for the needs of God’s holy church, and
he gives manifold thanks to you who were sent from the apostolic see
for having seen fit in your journey to visit him with your letters’. The
envoys of the holy Roman church replied: ‘It was both our duty and our
wish not to pass you by ungreeted, as we know you are the holy Roman
church’s sons, whom the holy apostolic see certainly embraces as its
own members’. 48. The envoys of the Bulgarians said: ‘Till today we
were pagans and we have but recently come to the grace of Christianity.
And so, in case we make any mistake, we want to know from you who
represent the supreme patriarchs to which church we must be subject’.
The envoys of the holy Roman church replied: ‘You do belong and you
ought to belong to the holy Roman church; to it, to St Peter prince of
the apostles, through you, Peter, your master has given himself with all

out in Greek words and letters, was given to the envoys of the Bulgarians, whose contents
were that the representatives of the East were, so to speak, to arbitrate between the Roman
representatives and the patriarch Ignatius, and were to decide that the land of the
Bulgarians in Illyricum was to be subjected to the diocese of Constantinople, though from
long ago it is clear that the organization in both Epiruses, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly, and
the other provinces in Illyricum, has always belonged to the apostolic see: various letters
of the Roman pontiffs from pope Damasus sent through these provinces testify to this; and
the princes of the Greeks, with the support of the prelates of Constantinople, have by
force alone, for the precise reason that we mentioned above, subdued these provinces from
the apostolic see.’

112 Joseph, archdeacon of Alexandria, representing his patriarch Michael, arrived in time
for only the 9th session of the council on 12 February 870; Thomas, metropolitan of Tyre,
represented the vacant patriarchate of Antioch; a priest Helias was sent by Theodorus
patriarch of Jerusalem. Thomas, unlike the others, could not speak Greek.

113 Before embarking on the Bulgarian debate, the reader may find it helpful to read cc.
61-63, which give the background to the arrival of these Bulgarian envoys.

114 As the legates remind him just below, Peter had led the Bulgarian embassy to
Nicholas in 866. Cf. John VIII, Ep. 67 (MGH Ep 7.60, J3131, 16 October 878), urging
Peter, whom John styles a ‘count’, to continue to work for the Roman church with Boris;
Ep. 183 (7.147, J3247, May 879), to Peter, Cerbula and Sundica, the optimates of the
Bulgarians, urging them to return with Boris to the Roman obedience; Ep. 192 (7.153,
J3261, 8 June 879), urging Boris himself to do this, and reminding him how he had sent
his ‘kinsman’ Peter, along with John and Martin, as envoys to Nicholas.

284

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the kingdom of his people, and from his successor the noteworthy pope
Nicholas he has deserved to receive precepts for living, and bishops and
priests; and you demonstrate it by this too, that you have received our
sacerdotes whom you asked for, and you also still keep them with
suitable reverence 1 . 49. The envoys of the Bulgarians said: ‘We grant
that it was from the holy Roman church that we asked for, received, and
still have sacerdotes , and we resolve to obey them in everything. But
decide, with these representatives of the patriarchs, whether we ought
more reasonably to be subject to the Roman or the Constantinopolitan
church’. The envoys of the holy Roman church replied: 115 ‘We have
with the Lord’s help completed those matters for whose decision with
the easterners the holy apostolic see had instructed us. But as for
determining your cause otherwise than it has been decided, as we have
received nothing in our instructions, we decide nothing, and we think
nothing should be decided, to the prejudice of the holy Roman church;
rather, because your entire country is filled with our sacerdotes , we
promulgate in a verdict, which is decisive in so far as it is within our
competence, that you must belong to no church other than the holy
Roman church’. 50. The representatives of the eastern patriarchs said
to the Bulgarians: ‘Tell us to whose power that country had been
subject, and whether it had Latin or Greek sacerdotes , when you
captured it’. 1,6 The envoys of the Bulgarians said: ‘We conquered that
country by arms from the power of the Greeks, and in it we found
sacerdotes who were Greek, not Latin’. The representatives of the
easterners replied: ‘If you found Greek sacerdotes there, it is clear that
that country was of Constantinople’s organization’. 117 51. The envoys

115 Anastasius, though absent from the debate, will have heard the details from the Roman
envoys afterwards. His account {PL 129.20-22, Mansi 16.11-12) is entirely independent
of, yet basically in agreement with, the LP. He summarizes and reworks the material, but
gives the Roman envoys much the same arguments: the eastern representatives are not
competent to arbitrate in a matter in which the envoys themselves (whose mandate was
confined to the affair of Photius) have no delegated power. He guarantees that his Latin
version of the Council is genuine, whatever the Greeks on past form might do to their
copies, then at the end of his Preface {PL 129.23, Mansi 16.13) refers again to ‘the debate
after the synod was finished, which we have mentioned above to have been before the
emperor, the representatives, and the Bulgarians, only about the land of the Bulgarians...’.
He was evidently concerned that the Greeks might add an account of this debate to the
acts of the council (they were liable to act ‘swinishly’, see n. 103). In fact the Greek acts
were not interpolated, but suppressed ten years later by Photius. Cf. Leonardi 1987.

116 Thanks to the defeat of Constantine IV in 679-80 the Bulgarians had crossed the
Danube and occupied the (already slavicized) province of Moesia; their kingdom later
expanded from there; Ostrogorsky 1969:125-7.

117 Note how linguistic difference is taken to identify different churches (Nelson, AB , 142
n. 15), though the Roman envoys immediately object to such a principle.

108. HADRIAN II

285

of the holy Roman church replied: ‘You must not construct an argument
from the sacerdotes being Greek, because difference of language does
not affect church organization. Thus the apostolic see, though it is Latin,
has always appointed and still appoints Greek sacerdotes in many places
by reason of the country, and it ought not now or in the past to feel that
its prerogative suffers damage’. The representatives of the eastern
patriarchs said: ‘Even if you claim that the organization of Greek priests
has been in your jurisdiction, you can never deny that that country used
to belong to the kingdom of the Greeks’. 52. The envoys of the holy
Roman church replied: ‘Just as we speak no falsehood when we say that
the organization of Bulgaria belongs to us on a different basis, so we
certainly never deny that this Bulgaria came from the kingdom of the
Greeks. But you must observe that the jurisdiction of sees organizes
things otherwise than the divisions of kingdoms allow. 1 ’ 8 We are not
treating of the division of kingdoms, we are speaking of the jurisdiction
of sees’. The representatives of the eastern patriarchs said: ‘We want
you to make us understand what you are saying, that Bulgaria belongs
to you on a different basis’. 53. The envoys of the holy Roman church
replied: ‘As you will be able to learn from the decretals of the holy
Roman prelates, the apostolic see of old canonically organized, and
obtained, both Epirus Nova and Epirus Vetus, and the whole of
Thessaly and Dardania, in which the Dardanian city 119 is pointed out
even today, and whose country these Bulgarians now call Bulgaria; 120

118 For this principle, the traditional Roman point of view, cf., e g., Leo I to Marcian in
452 {Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.4.56 lines 15-17): ‘the order of the world’s
affairs is one thing, and that of God’s affairs is another’. In the present instance
Anastasius puts it as follows, as background to the debate rather than as part of it {PL
129.20, Mansi 16.11): *... there is one juridical organization in worldly affairs, another in
those of the church, and although that region had been previously subject to the Greeks,
they could not legitimately claim for themselves any jurisdiction in it, as it was lost long
ago by force of arms and they had been unable to retake it in war for such a length of
time; although it is manifest both that the Romans possessed it before it was subjected to
the Greeks and that the Greeks, as is proved above, are not recorded to have held it except
when they held power by the sceptres of Rome.’

119 Or ‘city of Dardania’. Duchesne took the curious expression to refer perhaps to
Achrida, then the Bulgarian capital, which had succeeded the ancient city of Lychnidus;
but it was in the old province of Epirus Nova, not that of Dardania. More probably
(Duchesne III) the reference is to the ancient capital of the province of Dardania, Scupi
(Zlokufian near Skoplye). As Prima Justimana this had become the residence of the
praetorian prefect of lllyricum; it was also from Justinian’s time the see of the papal vicar
for the diocese of Dacia (a vicariate created out of the vicariate of Macedonia held by the
metropolitan of Thessalonica). The Dacian vicariate was still functioning at the time of
the Slav invasions; Gregory I {Ep. 11.29) was involved when the emperor Maurice wanted
to remove the ailing archbishop John in 601 (which incidentally shows that Roman
jusrisdiction in lllyricum was still operative at the start of the 7th century).

120 Anastasius (quoted in n. Ill) lists these provinces in much the same way. Duchesne

286

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and, in this way, it did not, as is now pretended, steal the organization
from the church of Constantinople. It had previously lost it through the
invasion of the pagan Bulgarians; and it got it back from them when
they became Christians. Secondly: because the Bulgarians subjugated the
country to themselves by the law of nations (look how many years they
have kept what they captured!), and specially committed themselves, as
we have said above, to the patronage and organization of the apostolic
see, it ought not to be unjust for them to be subject to us, whom they
chose of their own volition as masters. 54. Thirdly: because the holy
apostolic see brought these Bulgarians over from various errors to the
truth of the catholic faith on the order of the former pope lord Nicholas.
This was done both through some of us who are now present 121 and
have dedicated many churches there and have created sacerdotes, also
through the venerable bishops 122 Paul, Dominic, Leopardus and
Formosus, and also through our fellow-bishop Grimuald whom, as these
Bulgarians have admitted in our presence, they still have, with many of
our sacerdotes. m It took much toil, but Christ’s grace went before
them; and look, the apostolic see has held them more than three years,
it holds them, it organizes them and it administers them. And it
therefore follows that the Roman church is not to be stripped of those
with whom it is at present clearly vested, without the cognizance of the
supreme pontiff. 55. The representatives of the eastern patriarchs said:
‘Tell us which one of these arguments you want to draw on’. The
envoys of the holy Roman church replied: ‘The holy apostolic see has
not chosen you as judges in its own cause, because you are in fact of
lower status; nor has it chosen [to be judged] by us, since it alone has
the particular right to be the judge of every church; nor has it entrusted
it to us to pronounce a verdict on this cause. Therefore we fully reserve
for its trial and judgment what it has not given us to do; it is able to
produce many things from many books in defence of itself, and it can

noted that this part of the legates’ reasoning is flawed. True, certain provinces now
occupied by the Bulgarians had once belonged to the civil dioceses of Dacia and
Macedonia and so fell within the jurisdiction of the now-defunct papal vicariates (last
note), and their capital was in this area. But the eastern parts of their kingdom, between
Sardica (Sofia) and the Black Sea, were in the former diocese of Thrace, indisputably in
the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

121 Strictly, only Donatus; though he was not one of the missionaries to Bulgaria, he had
passed through it in 867 when leading Nicholas’s embassy to Michael III (107:71).

122 On the despatch of these to Bulgaria see 107:68-76, 108:12 and 61-64.

123 From this it follows that when this debate was held, about 3 March 870, the Roman
envoys already knew that bishops Leopardus and Dominic (c. 62) had been sent back to
Rome. Perhaps Peter, the Bulgarian envoy to Constantinople, had told them; if so it will
be he, mainly, who is meant by ‘these Bulgarians’.

108. HADRIAN II

287

overturn your entire verdict with a facility equal to the fickleness with
which you pronounce it’. 56. The representatives of the eastern
patriarchs said: ‘It really is improper for you, who reject the empire of
the Greeks 124 and cling to treaties with the Franks, to keep the
jurisdiction of organization in the kingdom of our prince. So we know
for certain that the country of the Bulgarians formerly came from the
power of the Greeks and that it had Greek sacerdotes , and we judge that
it should now be restored through Christianity to the holy church of
Constantinople from which it departed through paganism’. 57. The
envoys of the holy Roman church said loudly: ‘The verdict which,
whether by fear or favour or whatever, you have just hurled rather than
pronounced, though you were not chosen and not allowed to, we totally
abrogate by the authority of the Holy Ghost until the holy apostolic see
decides, so that in no way may it merit even the name of a verdict. And
by the authority of the holy princes of the apostles, before God and his
angels and all here present, we arraign you as answerable, patriarch
Ignatius, that in accordance with this letter 125 of the holy lord Hadrian
the supreme pontiff who reinstated you - here it is, we present it to you
- you keep the whole organization of Bulgaria free from your meddling
and send none of your men there; in case the holy apostolic see which
gave you back what you owned should lose what it owns through you.
However, if you think you have a just complaint - and we do not
believe it - do not neglect to notify it formally to the holy Roman
church your restorer’. 58. Then the patriarch Ignatius took the apostolic
letter, and, though much advised to read it, replied that he was
postponing doing so: ‘Far be it from me to be implicated in these rash
acts against the splendour of the apostolic see. Neither do I act so like
a child that I can be taken in, nor am I so old and deranged as to allow
myself what I would have to blame in others’. With that this conference
ended.

59. But the emperor’s agitation increased, though he maintained a
facade of hope. He summoned the envoys of the holy Roman church to
luncheon and adorned them with excellent gifts; he commended them
to Theodosius the spatharius for conducting home, without the
appropriate degree of concern. He took them as far as Dyrrachium 126

124 As Duchesne noted pointedly, the speakers (and their patriarchs) were themselves
subjects of muslim princes in Bagdad and Cairo, and not of the Greek Emperor.

125 Not surviving. Ignatius did not obey the letter, and with Basil’s support he ordained
a bishop for the Bulgarians. Hadrian ( Ep. 41,10 November 871) complained to Basil that
this utterly destroyed the hope that he, Hadrian, had had in the emperor.

126 Anastasius’s account of this, in his note on the first session of the council, is as
follows (PL 129.39, Mansi 16.29-30, continuing from n. 109): ‘Before they undertook

288

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

and negligently made no further provision when he left them. They
sailed for some days, were brought among the Slavs and - oh, what
anguish! - fell into the hands of Domagoi. 127 They were stripped of all
their goods, and of the authentic copy which had contained all the
signatures; and they would have been put to death but for fear of the
consequences from those of them who had escaped. 60. At last they
were delivered from exile by apostolic 128 and imperial letters; on 22

their homeward journey we were separated from them, since from Dyrrachium we came
by ship to Sipontum, then overland to Benevento, then to Rome, carrying those
documents; whereas the apostolic see’s envoys, also embarking at Dyrrachium, were
making for Ancona, but encountered pirates of the Sclaveni and totally lost everything
they possessed, including the codex of the acts of the present synod. But I, who was in
charge of the Roman library, had been careful to bring away with me from Constantinople
a codex of this synod, and I brought it and presented it to the supreme pontiff. So it
happened that the apostolic see, by God’s authorship, received a codex of the synod
through us, and possessed those documents, that were got back by us for the envoys,
saved by us. The envoys, if they had kept them in their own possession, would
undoubtedly have lost them, like the codex of the synod and the other writings.’ Cf.
Anastasius (PL 129.18, Mansi 16.9; continued from n. 104): ‘It was also I who considered
the various things that can happen to men and decided to transcribe into another codex,
and bring back all the way to Rome, the acts of this synod which the apostolic see’s
representatives had written in one volume for themselves to carry. So it happened that
when these representatives fell among robbers and lost the actual codex with all their
equipment I was recognized as the one who conveyed to Rome the codex which I had
brought away. Your holiness received it with gratitude and handed it to me for translation
into Latin, a task for which I denied my competence, though at the moment I try to make
some attempt at translating writings from the archive into the Roman language, and am
reckoned to have interpreted and published many already for the edification of many men,
especially at the urging of your predecessor.’ Hadrian II, in the letter ( Ep . 41, J2943, 10
November 871) he wrote to Basil, complained about what happened to his envoys and
blamed Basil for giving them inadequate protection: ‘We have at length, though late,
received our apocrisiarii also, stripped, and after many dangers, depredations and the
slaughter of their own men... So everyone grieves to hear this... that your arrangement and
organization could turn out without foresight, so that they miserably fell among the
swords of barbarians, supported by no aid from your empire.’ Louis II alluded to the
incident in a letter to Basil (MGH SS 3.525); ‘It would have befitted your excellency to
send them back guarded so that no attack of pirates or other wicked men had occurred.’

127 Domagoi was prince or duke of the Croatian Slavs from c. 865 to 876 when he was
succeeded by Sedesclav. He is mentioned in John the Deacon’s Chronicon Venetum (MGH
SS 7.21) and in John VIII’s letters, Ep. 9 (MGH Ep 7.278, J2964, Dec. 872 - May 873,
telling him about Greek treachery in Bulgaria), Ep. 38 (7.295, J2997, 874 - early 875,
telling all the Slavonic faithful that the Venetian priest John is to be restored, despite his
escape when Domagoi was trying to take his life), Ep. 39 (7.295, J2998, of the same date,
telling Domagoi to punish conspirators against him with exile rather than death, and to put
down pirates who claimed to be acting in his name). From the 8th century and for long
afterwards the coast and islands from Split to Dubrovnik were infested with Slav pirates
called Paganiani or Narentani. The area was also under threat from Arabs who besieged
Dubrovnik in 867, but were defeated by a Byzantine fleet. Despite this attempt to restore
Byzantine control along the eastern coast of the Adriatic, the cities and islands of Dalmatia
depended more on the Slavs than on Constantinople; they paid tribute to the Slavs, but
only symbolic sums to the Byzantine strategic Ostrogorsky 1969:236.

128 Not surviving.

108. HADRIAN II

289

December in the 4th indiction [870] 529 they arrived back in Rome and
related all that we have stated above before the supreme pontiff and the
dignitaries. They were able to display none of the writings apart from
the book of Ignatius’s action, 130 the documents 131 they had recovered
from the Slavs, and the other documents they had previously entrusted
at Constantinople to Suppo the chief counsellor and to Anastasius the
holy apostolic see’s wise librarian; it was through his concern and
foresight that the Roman church received a copy of the lost synod which
he had had written for himself. 132

61. Earlier on, 133 the venerable bishops Formosus of Porto and Paul
of Populonia, who had been despatched with the others to preach on the
order of pope Nicholas, came home, and they refreshed the apostolic see
about the Christianity of the Bulgarians and the absolute subjection in
which they had specially submitted their devout necks to the holy
Roman church; and they presented the Bulgarian king Michael’s envoy,
named Peter, to the supreme pontiff. This envoy presented, with royal
gifts, a royal letter as well, which earnestly begged the supreme prelate
either to send back Marinus, the deacon whom he knew well, as a
consecrated archbishop, or to send to the Bulgarians for their choice one
of the cardinals, provided he was one of his church and a man worthy
in wisdom, person and life: after they approved of him he could go back
home again, and he could raise him up to the archiepiscopal ministry.
62. But as Marinus had been, as we have said, allotted the legateship to

129 As the envoys had left Constantinople in March, they had been about 8 months with
the Slavs. Their delay, and Lothar’s death, had meant the abandonment of a council which
Hadrian had meant to hold in Rome. He had intended this to meet in early March 870 to
deliberate on Lothar’s divorce, and had hoped that the envoys at Constantinople would
be back in time to attend, AB 869 Nelson 156.

130 The Greek text of this survives, Mansi 16.295-301.

131 Duchesne plausibly suggested that these were the ‘documents of the more
distinguished bishops’ (c. 45): the envoys had hidden these more carefully than the others
and they had not been stolen from them at Constantinople. Anastasius had only brought
those which had been stolen and then returned to the envoys on his intervention. In his
own account (n. 126) Anastasius says nothing of documents saved by the envoys from the
Slavs and presents himself as saviour of the whole dossier.

132 See n. 126.

133 Formosus and Paul had returned to Rome late in 867, very shortly after Hadrian IPs
consecration, and two years before the events just narrated; cf. Lapotre 1880:413.
Probably when Formosus was pope (891-6), though possibly earlier, a painting was
provided in a small church near the Temple of Claudius, showing Christ in the midst of
SS Peter, Paul, Laurence and Hippolytus, with at his feet a barbarian prince (Boris) on
one side and Formosus on the other. The painting, found in 1689, was published by De
Rossi, Bull. 1869:59. Formosus’s figure had even then disappeared, but his name was still
recognizable: FORMOSVs. Duchesne noted with regret that this interesting piece of
evidence had long since become invisible. Cf. Ruysschaert 1992.

290

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Constantinople and devoutly resisted it, 134 the supreme pontiff sent one
Silvester, a subdeacon, to the Bulgarians for them to choose; but he
received him back very speedily as the Bulgarians sent him back with
bishops Leopardus of Ancona and Dominic of Trevi, 135 and a letter very
brusquely demanding the despatch of an archbishop or of Formosus
bishop of Porto. 136 The reply 137 he wrote them included the statement
that the provident pontiff would no doubt bestow as archbishop on the
Bulgarians whomsoever the devoted king should express by name.

63. But the king of the Bulgarians was unable to bear waiting and
delaying any longer, and ... ,38 he sent the same Peter, 139 whom he had
lately received from Rome without achieving his desire, with others
from his side, to Constantinople to inquire to whom he ought
particularly to belong. There they were clearly shown 140 by our legates
that they belonged to the Roman jurisdiction; they have subsequently
been persuaded with gifts and promises by the easterners and the
Constantinopolitans, 64. and, according to bishop Grimuald, who says
he has been repulsed by them, they have accepted Greek sacerdotes and
thrown ours out. By the same bishop Grimuald, who without the
cognizance of the apostolic see has abandoned the task of preaching
entrusted to him and has returned to Rome very wealthy, he 141 has

134 The meaning seems to be that Marinus resisted becoming archbishop, falling back on
his legateship as an excuse, rather than that he had been appointed legate unwillingly, or
that he was devoutly enduring the legateship.

135 Hadrian must have given Leopardus the task of conducting Silvester to Bulgaria.
Dominic had left at the same time as Grimuald, in the first weeks of Hadrian’s pontificate
(c. 12).

136 The LP avoids offending Silvester by saying that the Bulgarians did not want him (as
a subdeacon he was not a cardinal, cf. c. 61), and merely says that they wanted either
(another) archbishop or Formosus.

137 Not surviving.

138 In the Latin follows a corrupt and lacunose passage: quanta esse quam a Grecorum
imperatore, quoniam natorum thororum occasione alterna regna sibi alternatim rapere
machinabantur abductus. Duchesne wanted to correct thororum into suorum and see a
reference to the internal difficulties that Boris’s sons were causing their father (the sons
Vladimir and Symeon succeeded him in turn after his abdication). Perhaps the LP was
trying to say that Boris, impatient of so many delays and threatened by family dissension,
thought it inappropriate to make an enemy of the Greek emperor by resisting his advances.
A reconstruction along the following lines might be suggested: fhe considered) how much
greater (the delays) were than (they would be) from the emperor of the Greeks, (with
whom, also , he wanted to be on friendly terms) since, on the occasion of (his) sons’
nuptials, they were taking turns to engineer abductions in order to seize kingdoms in turn
for themselves, (so)...'

139 The Peter mentioned in cc. 46-8 and 61, envoy of the Bulgarian king.

140 i.e. in the dialogue beginning in c. 46.

141 Duchesne noted that either this verb should be plural or it should be preceded by
another subject (Boris); the writer, hurried along by the flow of his account, did not notice

108. HADRIAN II

291

despatched to the apostolic see, as an excuse for himself, a most
voluminous letter, enveloped in frivolous allegations and pretending to
be the deliberative verdict of the presidents of a synod. Because the
bishop is asserting he has been expelled by the Bulgarians, though the
letter is silent about it, and because the priests are all murmuring that
it was not Greeks or Bulgarians who expelled them but the bishop who
gathered them in and sheltered them for no clear reason, the shape of
treachery is somehow suspected in this activity. But the whole truth will
not be apparent until Christ, the searcher of minds 142 and hearts, brings
it to light when he examines his servants. 143

the anacoluthon. By November 871 when Hadrian wrote to Basil and Ignatius ( Epp. 41-2,
cf. n. 125), he knew that Ignatius had consecrated a bishop for the Bulgarians, which the
LP does not mention; while in those letters the pope does not mention the expulsion or
return of Grimuald, which he would surely have done if it had just happened. So
Grimuald probably left Bulgaria (without resisting Greek encroachments) in 870, while
the envoys were still in the hands of the pirates. Duchesne thought that die last page of
this life was written at the very end of 870 or very early in 871; written any later, it
would not have ended in this way. But note the reference to the conspiracy of the
Lamberts (c. 21), not written before August 871.

142 Duchesne prints rerum, but read renum, cf. Vulgate Wisdom 1.6, Ps. 7.10, Jer. 17.10,
Apoc. 2.23.

143 Here the life breaks off. The ‘third edition’ of the LP (Pferovsky, 623-639) gives a
brief summary of this life to the same point (the view of March 1925:124, that part of it
provided an older version of the text than the corresponding parts of LP, 108:2,4-8, is not
acceptable); it then adds a single sentence This blessed man anointed Charles son of
Louis and made him emperor’, a note which as it stands should belong to the life of
Hadrian’s successor John VIII (so Pferovsky, 639), who crowned Charles the Bald in St
Peter’s on 25 December 875, cf. AB 875-6 Nelson 187-9, AF 875 Reuter 78 (and his son
Louis the Stammerer in France on 7 September 878, AB 878 Nelson 210). That it has
been attached to Hadrian’s life may be through an understandable confusion with the first
of three imperial coronations in six years, for Hadrian did crown Louis II: AB 872 Nelson
179: on the eve of Pentecost Louis came to Rome and was crowned next day (18 May
872) by Hadrian; a solemn procession to the Lateran followed, and Louis left for
Benevento.

108. HADRIAN II

293

ADDENDUM: LIFE 108 IN MS PARISINUS 2400

This 1 lth-century manuscript from St Martial de Limoges contains the abridgment of the
LP by Adh6mar of Chabannes, c. 1030 (cf. LECP , xvii) but concludes with a peculiar
version of life 108 and the names of the next four popes. It is translated from the text in
Duchesne I clxxxii-clxxxiii. Whatever the value of this material, it is highly unlikely that
it comes from a longer version of the main text than now survives.

108. Pope Hadrian held the see 5 years, of Roman origin, son of
Julius (sic). He abundantly supplied many precious adornments for
churches. Like the earlier Hadrian he confirmed the Gregorian
antiphonary in many places, and he laid down that a second prologue in
hexameter verses was to be sung at the high mass on the first day of our
Lord’s Advent; this begins like the proemium of the earlier Hadrian,
which he had composed very carefully for all masses on the same first
Sunday of the Lord’s Advent, but it consists of more verses. He laid
down that in monasteries at high mass on special solemnities not only
were those interpolated hymns that they call ‘praises’ to be sung in the
angelic hymn ‘Glory be to God on high’, but also in the psalms of
David that they call ‘introits’ there were to be sung the inserted chants
which Romans call ‘festival praises’ and Franks call ‘tropes’, which
means figured adornments in praise of God. He also handed down the
melodies for singing before the gospel, those which they call
‘sequences’ because the gospel ‘follows’ them. And because these
festival chants had been established and composed by lord pope Gregory
I and afterwards by Hadrian, together with abbot Alcuin the favourite
of emperor Charles the Great (and this Caesar Charles took great delight
in them), but they were now being omitted by the neglect of the singers,
they were so confirmed to our Lord Jesus Christ’s praise and glory by
this bounteous prelate of whom we speak, that through the care of
scholars the tropiary also should thenceforth be kept in use alongside the
antiphonary for honourable chants on solemn days at high mass. He laid
down that Roman clerics should instruct our brethren the poor of our
Lord Jesus Christ that for three days before holy Easter Sunday, that is
on the day of the Lord’s Supper, the day of Preparation, and the day of
the Lord’s being in the tomb, they should beg alms in this city of Rome
in no other way than by singing this chant loudly in the streets and in
front of monasteries and churches: ‘Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Lord
have pity on us, Christ the Lord became obedient unto death’. 144 He

144 Cf. Philippians 2.8.

294

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

performed two ordinations in December and March, 8 priests, 5
deacons; for various places 60 bishops. 145

109. John held the see 10 years. 110. Marinus held the see 1 year 4
months, ill. Hadrian III held the see 1 year 4 months. 112. Stephen
held the see 1 year. Reader, I ask you to seek out the rest of the pontiffs
in the archive of the holy Roman church down to your own age, that
with them you may deserve to share in the everlasting kingdom of our
Lord Jesus Christ, whose honour, glory and rule endure for ever and
ever without end. Amen.

145 The ordination statistics are nowhere else recorded; those given may be fictional. None
of the versions records the fact that Hadrian 11 was buried in St Peter’s, though this was
known to the compiler of the papal catalogue inserted in the Chronicon Vulturnense
(Duchesne III. 111). His tomb was on the right-hand side of the basilica between one of
the intercolumniations in the area of the sacrarium , according to Pietro Sabino who copied
the epitaph (several fragments of which survive in the crypt of St Peter’s; De Rossi, Inscr.
christ ., 2, p. 419). The text mentions his piety and placidity, and his generosity to poor
and rich, and praises his virtues in general terms.

295

112. STEPHEN V (885-891).

Life 108, itself incomplete, might well be regarded as the end of the
LP. Of the four MSS which give the full text of that life, C 4 goes no
further. When Flodoard of Rheims visited Rome in the time of Leo VII
(936-9), with the aim of including verses about all the popes back to
Peter in his poem ‘On Christ’s triumphs in Italy’ {PL 135), he was able
to find much of his material in a copy of the LP which stopped at life
107; but for Hadrian II and all his successors he could do little more
than copy and rework the often banal epitaphs on their tombs at St
Peter’s. In the poem that resulted there is no trace of the use of these
epitaphs for earlier popes, and no likelihood that he had biographical
sources for later popes. It seems that for all the welcome he was
evidently given in Rome, there was no one there who could provide him
even with life 108, let alone any later lives. Again, when in the early
12th century the labours of Pietro Guglielmo and Cardinal Pandolfo
produced what is now called the ‘third edition’ of the LP, this was
founded on the ancient LP down to life 108 (lives 95 to 108 being very
heavily abbreviated), but from that point on nothing more could be done
than give a basic list of the names of the popes, their places of birth,
their fathers’ names, and the lengths of their tenure. From the time of
John XII (955-964) short historical notes are sometimes added (and in
one MS only this is done for John VIII, 872-888, with a text culled
from two of that pope’s letters). It was only with Gregory VII (1073-
1085) that an attempt was made to write a biography of significant
length, based on extracts from the papal registers.

The catalogue of names exists in a number of other forms apart from
that included in the third edition; it may be regarded as the regular
continuation of the LP. Those MSS which stop at earlier points than life
108 quite normally continue with a list of names down to the time when
these MSS or their ancestors were copied, often with even less detail
than was available to the compilers of the third edition. One short
example has just been presented in the addendum to life 108. Sometimes
the list is presented before the text of the biographies, running from
Peter down to a point later than the last biography given: so, for
example, in C 4 , where the initial catalogue, with names and tenures
only, goes down to Silvester II (999-1003).

The fact that even the extant life 108 was not available to Flodoard
shows that the text was not widely dispersed, and also leaves open a
theoretical possibility that the lives of the next popes once existed. If
they did, no trace survives of the lives which should bear the serial

296

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

numbers 109, 110 and 111. Yet of the four MSS which have life 108,
three of them (E 1 , E 2 and E 6 ) do give part of another life, presented
after 108 without a break. It concerns Stephen V (886-891), though
what there is does not seem to get beyond the first year of his
pontificate, nor did the text have any influence on the third edition or
other later writers. The copyist of E 6 , unaware of the three intervening
pontificates, did not understand how the fragment could refer to Stephen
V having had a predecessor named Marinus; twice in c. 2, and again in
cc. 3 and 11, he ‘corrects’ this name to Nicholas; Hadrian III he
probably confused with Hadrian II (though this does not affect the text
he presents, even in c. 11 where Hadrian is specifically called tertius).
The fragment is given below. Because it is so incomplete no attempt is
made here to provide a full introduction to Stephen V’s pontificate.

The reader must also look elsewhere for fuller details of the eventful
pontificates of the three popes whose lives are totally missing. The gap
is bridged here by giving no more than a basic catalogue of names and
dates (not from any single manuscript). Except for John VIII’s
ordination (AB 872 Nelson 180), precise dates are not on record.

109: John VIII [14 December 872 - .. December 882], of Roman
origin, son of Gundus, held the see 10 years 2 days; buried in St
Peter’s.

110: Marinus [882/3 - May/June 884], from Gallese by origin, son of
the priest Palumbus; held the see 1 year 5 months; buried in St Peter’s.

Ill: Hadrian III [May/June 884 - .. September 885], of Roman
origin, son of Benedict; held the see 1 year 3 or 4 months; buried at
Nonantola (see n. 3 below).

112. STEPHEN V

297

112. 1. STEPHEN [V; 26 September 885 - c. 4 October 891], of
Roman origin, son of Hadrian, 1 from the region Via Lata, 2 held the see
4 years 7 months 14 days. 3 This blessed pontiff was bom from an
ancestry of noble, and Roman, parents; while he grew by God’s grace,
he was trained in holy teachings by the endeavour and anxiety of his
kinsman, holy bishop Zacharias, 4 librarian of the holy see. The pontiff

1 Auxilius (E. DUmmler, 1866, 95) confirms Stephen’s paternity, as does the Invectiva
in Romam pro Formoso papa , PL 129.826 and 832 (quoted in nn. 6 and 12). Hadrian
long outlived his son: as late as 916, with other Roman nobles, he signed the alliance
between John X and the southern Italian princes: 'Hadrian father of lord pope Stephen’
(Duchesne, citing Federici, Storia dei duchi di Gaeta 150). This could imply that when
elected Stephen V was not 30 (theoretically the canonical age). He had become a
subdeacon by 872, and was presumably in his 20s when made priest in 884-5. At
Constantinople in 886, Leo VI deposed Photius and, to keep the church under his own
control, installed as patriarch his own brother Stephen who was barely 16.

2 Rome’s aristocratic quarter since the 8th century, cf. 97:1 with n. 1 (Hadrian 1), 102:1
(Valentine); the homes of Stephen II and his brother Paul were not far distant, and in the
10th century Alberic, prince of the Romans, lived in this area, at the site of the present
Palazzo Colonna.

3 These figures are wild, though (reading the months as xi rather than v//) they might
belong to Hadrian II. The Montecassino catalogue gives Stephen 6 years 8 days, that of
S. Maria in Trastevere 5 years 8 days, Pietro Guglielmo (the third edition of the LP) 6
years 14 days, the catalogue in C 4 6 years, other catalogues 6 years and some (9, 4, 13)
days. The date of Stephen’s ordination cannot be precisely fixed. The news of Hadrian
Ill’s death at Nonantola reached Charles the Fat at Frankfurt (where he issued diplomata
between September 6 and September 23, MGH DD C III 130-2), and after hearing it he
moved by way of Mainz to Worms (where he was by 1 October, MGH DD C III 133).
Stephen’s successor Formosus certainly died on Easter Sunday (4 April) 896 {AF 896
Reuter 135) after a pontificate of 4 years 6 months 2 days (Montecassino catalogue; he
had certainly succeeded before 13 November 891). If there was a short vacancy after
Hadrian Ill’s death, Stephen could have succeeded him in late September 885, i.e. on
Sunday 19th or 26th. If the latter is correct there is still room for a number of days over
his full 6 years before Formosus’s accession, which could be dated to Sunday 6 October
891. The last certain date in Stephen’s pontificate is 1 June 891, but he may have died as
late as 4 October. Duchesne noted that a diploma published by Fantuzzi (1901-4:1.90) is
dated 20 November in indiction 8 (889) and Stephen V year 4; this would mean that
Stephen’s pontificate began after 20 November 885, but the text may be corrupt (it is
rejected by JafF6-Ewald, 427).

4 Cf. 107:20 etc. Zacharias became bishop of Anagni between 855 and 860; in 860 he
and Radoald bishop of Porto were on the embassy to Constantinople. They both betrayed
their trust and were penalized by pope Nicholas: Zacharias was deposed and reduced to
lay communion (107:42). But at his accession Hadrian II reinstated him to communion
among ecclesiastics (108:10). Louis II favoured him, no doubt because of his family’s
rank, and in 869 insisted on his fuller rehabilitation (see the speech delivered in the
council held then to deal with this matter and with Lothar’s marriage (Mansi 15.890;
Lapdtre 1880:408f). This was granted: ‘but pope Hadrian recalled him to his former status
in the church’ {Invectiva in Romam pro Formoso papa , PL 129.835). He became
Librarian under John VIII, probably on Anastasius’s death, and is called such in a
document of 29 March 879 (J3230; Lapdtre 1885:287). He was probably dead when
Stephen V became pope.

298

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Hadrian the younger [II] of godly memory noticed that he was
accomplished in good character and ardent in the study of letters, took
him from his distinguished above-named father, and by God’s favour
advanced him to the rank of the subdiaconate, setting him to serve in his
household and to carry out church duty in the Lateran patriarchate; and
after receiving this honour he led an admirable life. 2. He was chaste
in body, kind in heart, cheerful in appearance, wise in conversation;
with his wealth he was generous, in character he was eloquent, he was
a consoler of the grieving, he was a mentor to orphans and the needy
and, to summarize generally, he was adorned with the blossoms of every
virtue. That was why this eminent prelate, as he continued in the holy
Roman church’s service and devoted himself more and more to spiritual
endeavours, became well-known to and loved by the supreme pontiff
Marinus 5 of reverend memory and was even more closely attached to
the service of his household. When this supreme pope Marinus saw his
purity, wisdom and loyalty in every way, because of what his faith and
wisdom deserved he assigned him to be his household servant all the
days of his life; and recognizing his spiritual behaviour, he consecrated
him priest 6 of the SS Quattuor Coronati, 7 and allowed him to be in no
way detached from himself while he lived.

3. So pope Hadrian [III] of memorable renown, who had succeeded
that blessed pope Marinus, died on the river Scultinna at the villa called
Viulzachara; 8 in his time the Roman citizens had suffered many

5 Given Stephen’s probable youth there may be no significance in the lack of progress
in his career during the 10-year pontificate of John VIII (872-882), which intervened
between those of Hadrian II and Marinus.

6 The Invectiva in Romam pro Formoso papa {PL 129.832) speaks of Stephen as having
been ordained deacon, not priest, by Marinus (‘So, if Marinus was not a bishop, then
Stephen son of Hadrian, who was later Apostolicus, was not a deacon’). The anonymous
writer is clearly wrong in practice, though not technically so, since 9th-century Roman
ordines regularly assume that priests have been previously ordained deacons. Stephen will
have passed on the same day from the subdiaconate through the diaconate to the
priesthood, without ever exercising the diaconate.

7 Conveniently close to the Lateran for a priest whom the pope wanted near at hand.

8 Since Muratori {Annali V, 168) the Scultinna has been identified with the River Panaro,
and the villa with S. Cesario sul Panaro, near Modena. The purpose of Hadrian’s journey
north is given by AF 885 Reuter 98-9: ‘The emperor held an assembly at Frankfurt and
sent envoys to Rome to invite Pope Hadrian to Francia. For he wished, as the rumour
went, to depose certain bishops unreasonably and set up Bernard, his son by a concubine,
as heir to the kingdom after him, and because he doubted that he could do this himself,
he wanted to have it done by the Roman pontiff, as if by apostolic authority. By the
judgement of God his deceitful plans were frustrated’ (by Hadrian’s death en route).
Reuter notes that Charles may have revived these plans in early 887: Stephen V ( Ep . 14,
J3428, MGH Ep 7.340) had been asked by him to attend an assembly. Hadrian Ill’s body
was apparently never taken back to Rome (even though his father was still living) but
buried atNonantola. This and the lack of record of his obituary date suggest that he was

112. STEPHEN V

299

problems both from devastation by locusts and also from the
insufficiency of rain and from want and hunger, and they then believed
they could be relieved by this venerable man’s sanctity. By God’s mercy
there was a gathering of holy bishops and the whole clerical order and
also an assembly of the noble senates and of the illustrious men, and
they all cried out, together with the whole people and the multitude of
the commons of both sexes; ‘The lord priest Stephen is worthy of God,
we all want him, we all ask and pray that he be our prelate, since we
know without doubt that through his holiness we can be delivered from
the dangers that threaten us’. 4. To look after the city, the pontiff we
have named, Hadrian [III], had then left at Rome John, the venerable
bishop of Ticinum and envoy of His Excellency the emperor Charles; 9
and all, joined with this imperial envoy, came with one accord to the
house where with his father this bountiftil Stephen was engaged in holy
discourse. When they broke down the doors, they seized and took the
God-elected pontiff to that titulus of the SS Quattuor Coronati which
was entrusted to him, though he greatly resisted, along with his father,
and both of them cried out and protested that they were unworthy of so
great an office. And there too all the scholae 10 of the holy Roman
church linked together in joy took this venerable elected man, and with
Christ as their leader brought him to the Lateran palace with every
honour and reverence that was due. 5. Before he reached the sacred
palace there was such a deluge of rain from heaven that its fruitfulness
refreshed the earth which had been dry for a long time back, so that
God showed by a clear sign that he was willing to forgive all the people
through this great and bounteous man’s merits and prayers. While he
stayed in that palace the dignitaries of both orders rejoiced and began
to parade their due fealty. When the next Sunday came, 11 the whole

not popular in Rome; but a local cult developed around his tomb, and his feast came to
be celebrated on 8 July.

9 John bishop of Pavia was the permanent imperial envoy, appointed by Charles the Fat
in accordance with the Constitutio of 824 (pp. 33ff). This passage confirms the implication
of the Constitutio that the city of Rome’s government was not part of his normal duties,
and that it was only delegated to him by the pope (cf. the case of Benedict, brother of
Sergius II, 104:41 and pp. 73-4). John was rewarded for his involvement in Stephen’s
election: soon after his ordination Stephen gave the duchy of Com&cchio to him rather
than to another (unknown) claimant on whose behalf one Gaudo shortly afterwards
petitioned the pope (J3411).

10 The palatine scholae , corporations of the papal court’s clerics and officials, analogous
to those of the Byzantine court mentioned at 108:36; cf. 98:19 and n. 49.

11 For the date of this Sunday see n. 3. There was no delay while the consent of the
emperor was obtained and the pope swore fidelity to him, presumably because, as
assumed by the Constitutio of 824, the imperial envoy John of Pavia was in Rome and
(for a promised bribe, cf. n. 9) acted in the emperor’s stead. But Charles the Fat was not

300

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Roman church honourably led him to the homes of St Peter prince of
the apostles, and there too he was consecrated pontiff 2 and celebrated
the ceremonies of mass in the usual way. He returned with due honour
and honouring to the Lateran palace, and began to adorn his ministry
with wondrous works.

6. Then with the venerable bishops, the imperial legate and the
honourable senate, he proceeded round all the vestries of the sacred
palace, which he found looted 13 to such an extent that of the hallowed
vessels with which the pontiffs had been used to hold banquets on
feastdays very few were found, and of the rest of the wealth nothing at
all. But no wonder he found all the treasures of the vestries taken away,
when on investigation he found almost none of the many offerings and
decorations of the churches. Even that famous gold cross that Belisarius
the patrician 14 had set up in honour of St Peter prince of the apostles,
and most of the gold altarcloths with the other precious ornaments, were
missing. So this blessed pope had the foresight to investigate these
things in front of many witnesses, so that all would know it was not in
his time that such misappropriation had taken place. 7. So he was
deeply touched with grief because, apart from the vestries being looted,
the granaries and cellars were found to be empty, and he had nothing

happy: AF 885 Reuter 99: ‘When the Romans heard of the death of their pontiff, they set
up Stephen in his place. The emperor was furious at the fact that they had presumed to
ordain anybody without consulting him, and sent Liutward [bishop of Vercelli,
archchancellor of the empire] and some [suburbicarian] bishops of the Roman see to
depose him. But they were unable to do this. For the said pontiff sent by ambassadors to
the emperor the names of more than thirty bishops, and of all the cardinal priests and
deacons and persons of lesser rank, and also letters from the leading laymen of the region,
who had all unanimously elected him and subscribed his ordination’. Once Charles knew
that Stephen had acted in agreement with the imperial envoy he had little choice but to
accept the fait accompli, however many clerics and nobles vouched for the unanimity of
the election.

12 Formosus, bishop of Porto, exercised his right to take part in the ceremony; Jnvectiva
in Romam pro Formoso papa (PL 129.826): ‘Also, pope Stephen, son of Hadrian, whom
the same Formosus had consecrated...’. Though deposed and replaced under John VIII,
Formosus had been reinstated by Marinus.

13 The pillaging of the Lateran palace on the death of a pope, and of other bishoprics on
the death of bishops, had now become a custom, as can be seen by the attempt made by
John IX, in a council at St Peter’s in 898, to abolish it (Mansi 18.221, c. 11): ‘Because
a most wicked custom has also grown up that at the death of the pontiff of the see of the
holy Roman church the patriarchate itself is wont to be plundered, and such presumption
is rampant not only in the holy patriarchate but also throughout the whole city and its
suburbs, and also because this has hitherto been left unavenged, with the result that all
bishoprics at the death of the pontiff of every single church suffer the same, we totally
prohibit this presumption ever occurring again. Let him who presumes to do this be
smitten not only with the censure of the church but with the wrath of the emperor.’

14 LP Vigilius, 61:2 (BP 56), mentions this cross, the engravings on which
commemorated Belisarius’s victories.

112. STEPHEN V

301

to disburse to the clergy and the scholae, and lacked anything to use for
ransoming captives 15 or feeding orphans and widows in the serious
famine that threatened. What could he do? He turned to his father, and
took the wealth that his distinguished parents had owned; with bountiful
right-hand he disbursed it to the poor as far as possible, and so by
God’s mercy it came about that he lightened the need and famine by his
endeavour.

So he searched on all sides and gathered such ministers and
household-servants for his service who were accomplished in holiness
of life, sincerity of faith, wise teaching, eloquence and probity of
character. When he sat to a meal, every day he called in orphans whom
he nourished like his children; when he invited nobles and fed them
with physical foods he used to refresh them with spiritual nourishment.
So great was the fear of God which he bore in his mind’s eyes and
devoted himself to in God’s praises, that every day holy reading was
recited at his meal. 8. Every day he celebrated the ceremonies of mass,
night and day he devoted himself to prayer, and he never ceased the
chanting of the psalms except when he wanted to fulfil the need of the
people that called to him, in order to raise up the crushed and help the
afflicted.

He observed the people’s insolence and blindness of heart as they
were devoted in church to chatter, wicked myths and idle gossip, 16 and
he heard by common report that some were involved in sorceries and
charms, so, while celebrating mass, he addressed this admonition to the
people: ‘Dearly beloved sons, we admonish you that when you gather
in God’s holy temple you must endeavour to occupy yourselves
diligently with that for which you come. For if you truly believe that it
is God’s temple in which you gather, there is no doubt that you must do
therein what pleases the owner of the temple in which you gather. For
while God is everywhere, he ought to be sought especially in his
temple, and, as far as he has seen fit to inspire, what pleases him must
be sought after therein. Therefore he is a merciful God, yet he so
disposes it that everyone must seek after his mercy, that he grants it to
those who ask, freely, and he grants it to each one with more bountiful
piety the more he is besought by someone with greater groanings and
more fervent mind, as he says: ‘Her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
for she loved much.’ 17 For God’s temple is a place of prayer, as he says

15 Saracen raids were increasing at this time.

16 The expressions seem to be calqued from 1 Tim. 5.13.

17 Luke 7.47.

302

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

somewhere: ‘My house is a house of prayer for all the nations’; 18 and
the psalmist: ‘Holiness befits thy house, O Lord’. 19 So if it is a house
of prayer, one must do therein what it is called, that is, pray, chant
psalms, confess sins, wash away transgressions with bitter tears in the
eyes and groanings in the mind, and confidently implore pardon for
faults committed. God’s gaze is there especially; there the orders of
angels attend, the choirs of saints, who bear the vows of the faithful and
the prayers of the sacerdos praying for the people to the ears of the
Lord of Sabaoth. By what effrontery, I ask, does someone attend in
God’s holy temple, when he devotes himself to empty myths and
careless words? For if account must be rendered on the day of judgment
for every careless word, 20 account will be rendered and punishment
exacted most of all for those which are obstinately uttered in the sight
of so many saints in a place dedicated to God. By what hope, I ask,
does anyone think he will gain pardon for past transgressions, who not
only neglects to wash away his sins but rather strives to increase them?
Fear him who made a whip of cords and drove those who sold and
bought out of the temple. 21 Yet they were engaged in useful trade,
which is more tolerable than chattering emptily and carelessly. When
you gather in the place of prayer, stand in silence, and with attentive
heart pray God to receive the vows and to hear the prayers of the
sacerdos who prays for you; and keep before your eyes the Lord’s
admonition when he says: ‘Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you
have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven
may forgive you your trespasses.’ 22 Meditate on these things and do
them by the inspiration of God’s grace, and, imbued with the teachings
of the gospel and the Apostle, joyfully enlightened as with lamps by the
mercy obtained from almighty God with the fruit of good works, you
will be worthy to be presented to Christ and to be crowned with the
saints. For the rest, dearly beloved, we wish you to know that the Lord
in giving the law to his people, as Moses bears witness, laid down the
words: ‘You shall not permit a sorcerer to live.’ 23 Now in this city - I
say it with grief - some are found who, far from assailing sorcerers,
even harbour and maintain them, and they do not shrink from using

18 Based on Mark 11.17 (Isaiah 56.7).

19 Ps. 92 (93).5 (in the text of the Roman Psalter); the first psalm at morning prayer
(lauds) on feastdays and Sundays (except from Sexagesima to Palm Sunday).

20 Matthew 12.36.

21 John 2.15; Matthew 21.12, Mark 11.15, Luke 19.45.

22 Mark 11.25.

23 Exodus 22.18 (where Vulgate has ‘sorcerers’ and RSV ‘a sorceress’).

112. STEPHEN V

303

them to consult demons with certain charms, even forgetting God’s law
and the Apostle’s teaching, the words of which resound: ‘What
fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with
Belial?’ 24 For by spuming Christ and consulting demons as the gentiles
do, they acknowledge that they are in no way Christians. Let everyone
consider how terrible it is, and how godless, for a Christian to spurn
Christ and worship demons, so that he may shrink from committing
such a crime. Therefore, whoever henceforth attempts to stain himself
with such infection, we adjudge him by the judgment of the Holy Ghost
to be estranged from our Lord Jesus Christ’s lifegiving body and blood
until he repent of such great slackness. But he who spurns such healthy
prohibitions, perseveres in plague-ridden obstinacy, and neglects to
repent, let him by God the Father and Jesus Christ his son be forever
anathema.’

9. Such was this outstanding prelate, and he persevered to the end in
what suited God’s worship; hence so much grace was granted him from
God, that he used whatever he could own for enriching the holy
churches and ransoming captives, and he was anxious for everyone’s
safety. And so, when the fame of his reputation and actions was spread
through the regions of both east and west, just about everyone came to
him to receive his blessing. 10. Among other matters, it is a lengthy
thing to recount the donations he conferred on various churches.

But, to summarize, when he noticed that in St Peter the prince of the
apostle’s basilica, where he rests in his holy body, the burning of
incense was scarcely offered once at night-time praises, he laid down
that it should be burnt at each of the readings and responsories. 25 On
that basilica’s pergola this reverend pope in his love for St Peter his
mentor placed 1 gold incense-boat, with precious pearls and jewels and
enamel, with a peg for hanging. Also in St Peter’s venerable basilica he
presented 1 gold diadem with various pearls, and 1 sword with sheath,
of gold and jewels, and sword-belt. 11. On this basilica he also
conferred 1 cloth with gold and pearls; 4 silk veils around the altar; and
the 40 homilies of St Gregory.

In this same basilica this holy pope, the mighty extirpator of all vices,
discovered there was an evil custom that the priests who daily offered

24 2 Cor. 6.14-15.

25 The earlier custom was for one incensation at the night office, carried out while the
canticle Benedictus was sung at lauds. This was also the later custom, so if this is what
Stephen changed he had no success. But in view of the next sentence, the LP may be
referring to a special custom at St Peter’s of burning incense in fixed censers, rather than
to censing with a thurible swung on chains from the bearer’s hand.

304

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

sacrifice to the Lord there customarily paid one fine 26 every year. His
predecessor lord pope Marinus of holy memory had broken this custom
but by the stealth of certain men it had sprouted up again in the time of
pope Hadrian III, so he ordered with earnest adjuration that no one
should ever take either this or any other payment from them, but they
should be permitted to fulfil their duty with every honour as befits
sacerdotes.

When he noticed that the consuetudinarius at the night-time vigils in
the great church called that of God’s highly-exalted mother St Mary ad
Praesepe lacked lamps, this holy prelate, for his everlasting memory,
presented silver bowls with lamps and ordered that they blaze
continuously at the vigils. In the same basilica this gentle pontiff
provided 4 veils around the high altar, 2 of which are topped with silk,
the third of violet, and the fourth with alexandrian, all of them
decorated around with all-silk.

12. Then this God-protected holy pope, for the reward of his soul,
provided in the church of St Paul the apostle and teacher of the nations,

1 fine gold diadem, with various jewels, pearls, prases and jacinths, and
in the middle of the diadem one small hanging gold cross with its
chains; one silk cloth for the high altar, with gold and jewels. In the
same basilica of the nations’ noteworthy teacher he provided 4 portal-
veils 27 , one of which is gold-worked.

In the Lord Saviour’s church called Constantinian this venerable and
distinguished pontiff provided one gold-worked cloth for the high altar
with various pearls. 13. This reverent prelate also conferred on this
basilica 4 silk portal-veils of byzantine purple around the high altar, two
of them with representations of eagles, and two with basilisks, 28
decorated around with all-silk; and for each of the arches of the
presbyterium 90 silk veils representing lions. For the future cure of his
soul he conferred there one gilt cantrella , 1 Comes-book, 1 book of the
Prophets, and 2 books of acts. 29

14. As he had anxiety for the condition of God’s churches 30 in case
those that were set to fall should collapse in his time, he renewed from

2 witta ( wita ), a Saxon word.

27 It appears that the curtains were used to surround the altar, with the spaces between the
columns supporting the altar-canopy being thought of as doorways or ‘portals’. The veil
that is gold-worked is presumably the one facing the nave.

28 For basilisks see the story of Leo IV, 105:18-19.

29 Two volumes of martyr-acts, rather than two copies of the Acts of the Apostles.

50 Of. 2 Cor. 11.28, where, however, by ‘anxiety for all the churches’ St Paul is not
referring to buildings.

112. STEPHEN V

305

its foundation SS James and Philip the apostles’ church, which
consumed by great age was close to falling; 31 he adorned it with a
chalice and paten that he conferred, gilded and inscribed with his name
in Latin and Greek letters; furthermore, for his everlasting salvation he
conferred on that basilica of the Apostles 1 linen curtain, and 3 silk
portal-veils 32 around the altar. In St Thomas’s oratory in St Andrew the
apostle’s monastery 33 close to the basilica of the Apostles he provided
one cloth.

15. As he knew that the basilica of the SS Quattuor Coronati, in
which he used to carry out his sacerdotal duty, had little decoration, out
of his reverence and love for these saints this noteworthy and wise pope
presented in it a gold cross above the altar with jewels and enamel, a
sugulum to hang from a diadem, and 2 pairs of candlesticks 34 coated in
silver. For his great love of them, this kind pope conferred there 1 gilt
incense-boat, 1 Solomon, 35 1 gold diadem with precious jewels, 1 cloth
with gold and pearls, 1 book of Sermons, 1 book of acts, 36 and 1 book
of the gospels with the epistles. 16. This distinguished prelate, ever
more drawn by God’s zeal and moved with love for those saints,
provided in their basilica 15 fine silver canisters worked with wondrous
beauty, weighing in all 30 lb, and he bestowed 1 codex of St John
Chrysostom.

In St Marcellus the martyr and pontiffs titulus this bountiful pope
provided 1 silver canister weighing 3 lb; 1 gold cross; 26 linen veils; 37
1 linen curtain; also 1 book of Histories, and 20 homilies of St

31 Nothing now visible at SS Dodici Apostoli on the Via Lata is earlier than 1702-1742,
Krautheimer, Corpus 1.79. The church was founded by Pelagius I (LP 62:3 BP 59),
dedicated by his successor John III (LP 63:1 BP 60), but is traditionally identified with
pope Julius’s basilica near the Forum (LP 36:2 BP 27), cf. remarks in BP xxvii.

32 Unless ‘3’ is an error for ‘4’, the fourth side of the altar will either have remained
uncurtained or have been draped with the linen curtain just mentioned (though one would
expect the most prominent curtain to have been of the more expensive material); cf. a
similar arrangement in c. 12, with n. 27.

33 Cf. 98:77 and n. 147. The monastery of St Andrew de Biberatica was attached to the
service of the basilica of SS Dodici Apostoli just mentioned.

34 So, rather than ‘a pair of two candlesticks’ as Krautheimer, Corpus 4.3, takes it.

35 The various Wisdom Books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, attributed to
Solomon.

36 Again, martyr-acts which, with Sermons or Homilies, were read at the night office.

37 The number 26 may give the only clue to the original nave arcade of this church, built
perhaps c. 380-450 to replace the original titulus. Its plan is unknown; it was replaced by
a new building in 1125-1150, and this in turn was rebuilt in 1519 with reversed
orientation (before 1519 it was entered from the east), Krautheimer, Corpus 2.206. This
is the last literary reference to S. Marcello until 1116.

306

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Gregory. 38

In God’s mother the ever-virgin St Mary’s church in Monterano 39 he
placed 1 book of Kings and 1 silk altarcloth.

17. In the monastery 40 of Clivus Scauri this gentle pope provided 1
gold cross.

With the anxiety he had for all the churches, 41 this dutiful father
conferred on St Silvester’s monastery 42 on Mount Soracte 1 silver censer
and 1 silver cantrella.

Ever more inflamed with God’s love he provided in St Pudentiana’s
titulus 1 book of Sermons. In St Anastasia’s titulus , 43 1 book of
Sermons and Epistles. In the church called Jerusalem at the Sessorian 44
he presented 1 book of Kings and 1 of Solomon. With reverence for his
predecessor St Gregory before the eyes of his heart, this supreme pontiff
bestowed on St Gregory’s hostel 45 in St Peter the apostle’s portico, 1
book of holy Sermons; and on the Schola Cantorum formerly called the
Orphanage, 46 1 Heptateuch. 47

18. This elegant prelate and mighty preacher of the true faith sent
back to the church of Ravenna for the cure of his soul 12 lb gold and
.. lb silver, which had been stolen from there by the stealth of certain
men. He also restored to the church of Imola 7 lb gold and .. lb silver
which had been stolen. With God before his eyes he also restored 1
silver paten to the church of Bologna.

And for his everlasting reward, in the church of... 48

3H The last two items are for use at the night office. ‘Histories’ refers to the collections
of readings, and/or the responsories accompanying them, used at the first (or only)
noctum. Gregory’s Homilies (though this church was now provided with only half of
them) were read as commentaries on the gospel at the third nocturn when appropriate.

For the location of this church, then a cathedral, see n. 67 to 91:23. The bishopric
survived into the 10th century: one Florus, bishop of Monterano, was still a priest in 924
and died before 952 ( Registrum Sublacense nos. 122, 27).

40 Cf. 103:28, and 96 n. 28.

41 2 Cor. 11.28 again.

42 Cf. 103:12 and n. 25.

43 The last reference to this church before 1140-43.

44 The last reference to S. Croce before 1144-45.

45 Mentioned at 97:66 (cf. n. 131) as near where Hadrian I built St Silvester’s deaconry.
4( ' Orphanotrophium ; cf. 104:24 and n. 46,

47 The first seven books of the Old Testament, Genesis through to Judges (possibly with
Ruth as an appendix).

48 There is a lacuna in the text, at the precise point where MS E 2 happens to end. The
text had begun to deal with donations or restorations to some church; when it resumes it
is dealing with relics distributed to the tituh of cardinal priests and to monasteries: the
words ‘glitter with many miracles’ can only refer to relics.

112. STEPHEN V

307

... he bestowed some to the tituli of various cardinals, 49 and others to the
various monasteries all around, where they glitter with many miracles,
but the greatest part he placed with worthy honouring at the church
called the Apostles. As 50 this was consumed by old age and was close
to falling, the same holy pope renewed it from the foundations, and he
embellished it by the gift of many adornments. Indeed his entire purpose
was always to do what was acceptable to God.

19. Now since the disaster of locusts which in his predecessor
Hadrian’s time 51 had consumed virtually the whole country, with their
seed evilly multiplied, had begun to be bom and had filled everything,
this holy pope had pity on the afflicted people and first of all he
announced that anyone who caught a pint of them and brought it to him
would receive five or six 52 denarii from him. 20. The people heard this
and began to scurry round in every direction, to catch them and bring
them for the merciful father to buy. But when they were unable to wipe
them out by this means, he took refuge in the Lord’s mercy, came to St
Gregory’s oratory, where his bed is preserved, 53 close to the prince of
the apostles’ church, and tearfully gave himself to prayer. When he had
prayed at length, he rose up, blessed water with his own hands, and
gave this order to the mansionarii : ‘Take this and give them all a
portion; advise them to go round their lands in the Lord’s name and
sprinkle this water over the crops and vines, and beg for relief from
God’s support’. 21. When this was done, such great mercy ensued from
almighty God that wherever this water was sprinkled there remained not
a single locust. Hearing this, everyone from the neighbourhood all
around flooded into the City and begged for help, crying out that the
whole land was covered in locusts like dust. The dutiful pope kindly

49 Amending diver si card inales to diversorum cardinalium.

50 This restoration of SS Dodici Apostoli may duplicate c. 14 above.

51 Cf. c. 3 above.

52 Is the variation to allow for pint-pots of different sizes? Or does the expression mean
5‘/2 denarii (though that would be a very odd sum for the pope to decide on).

55 This oratory (not the one built by Gregory IV, 103;6) was a building separate from the
main structure of St Peter’s and immediately north of the basilica’s entrance-portico. It
already existed in the 8th century; cf. the description of St Peter’s (Notitia Ecclesiarum
§41, CChr / 75.311.208-210): ‘proceed to the portico of Petronilla, and happily go up to
the holy father Gregory’s bed, on which he gave up the ghost, a worthy gift to God who
gave it; and there you have 11 altars’. The ‘11 altars’ suggested to De Rossi {Inscr. 2, p.
227), perhaps rightly, that the next building immediately east of the Oratory of Gregory’s
bed, which was called St Vincent’s church by the time of Mallius, was once part of this
oratory; LP 105:94 (cf. n. 139) does not show that St Vincent’s existed in the 9th century;
cf. Duchesne 1902:420. But a further difficulty remains: the Notitia 's reference to the
portico of Petronilla ought to refer to some structure at the diagonally opposite end of St
Peter’s.

308

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

advised them that they ought to ask help from heaven against the
scourge that threatened. Then joyful ... 54

54 Who or what (feminine singular or neuter plural) was joyful we do not know, since
here the life finally breaks off, having hardly got beyond the first year of Stephen V’s
pontificate (886-887). The fragmentary state of the text makes it likely that more was
written, though whether the life was ever completed we do not know; at any rate the
damage to the archetype is likely to have been early. Stephen lived until 891 and was
buried in St Peter’s. His tomb w as in the entrance-portico, to the north of that of Benedict
III. Mallius (De Rossi, Inscr. 2, p. 214) preserved the epitaph: it states that he ruled the
people and the city for six years and did what pleased the Lord.

309

GLOSSARY

This glossary is intended to supplement that in LECP. Occurrences in lives 100-112
of terms which are defined and registered there are registered here without definition.

alabandinae (103:25), explained by Isidore ( Origines 16.14.6) as precious stones, named
after the city of Alabanda in Asia (Caria), famed for its wealth and luxury; Pliny, NH
37.82 describes some carbuncles (q.v.) as ‘alabandic’, and speaks also (NH 36.62) of a
black alabandic stone which tended to look purple.

albaverae (103:16,106:31), precious stones, literally ‘white-crimsons’ (not ‘true-whites’),
since the second element of the word represents Greek a^r|0ivdv, a word
which in Latin spelling occurs 13 times in life 98 and 6 times in life 100
and is rendered ‘crimson’.

beaker ( bauca , 105:104, 106:34), a goblet (German derivative Pokal); cf. Chron,
Casinensis , MGHSSrL 473.9-10, where Siconulfs thefts from Montecassino include ‘1
pair beakers ( vaucae ) in jewels and emeralds, 1 pair spurs (spora), 1 silk tunic (< q.v.\
sarica , occurring also in the former of these LP passages) of silfori (q.v.) with gold and
jewels’.

bowl (gabata)\ a frequent usage; as is clear from 100:20 gabatae are lighting fixtures; at
100:11 they were evidently to be hung above the confessio.

buticulae (2 of them, and 3 smaller ones), and (its diminutive) buticellae (33 of them;
both words at 103:26 only). The word is the origin of English ‘bottle’, but this meaning
(or ‘keg, small barrel’) offered by Niermeyer, and by Ducange 1.795 citing buticula from
the LP, does not easily suit the context (Ducange cites buticella from a Justinianic charter,
evidently also as ‘bottle’). The words evidently refer to parts of a necklace, perhaps
pendants shaped like thin bottles, whereas the petinantes in the same context may have
been thinner and straighter.

buttercup (ran(n)unculus y 105:57 only); some kind of decorative object (context of a silver
lily and crystal melons). The meanings ‘little frog, tadpole’, or ‘the ligament under the
tongue’ hardly suit. More plausible is ‘a medicinal plant, batrachion, perhaps crowfoot,
ranunculus’. The translation uses ‘buttercup’ (Linnaeus: ranunculus tuberosus ),
‘ranunculo’ in Italian.

calpi (107:36 only); evidently for calpar (Greek KdAjcri and k&Xtik;), ‘a vessel for
liquids, especially a wine-cask’ (see citations in Lewis & Short, but the object in the LP
is silver, not Jictilis, ‘earthenware’). The translation retains the Latin, because of its rarity,
and to distinguish it from numerous words for similar vessels.

canister (i canistrum ), occurs 22 times in these lives. At 100:20, 103:18, 105:60 and
106:24, the objects are stated to have six or nine wicks ( exafoti ; ennafoti). This makes the
suggestion in LECP (based on Leclercq in DACL) unlikely; the word may represent
icavicxKiov, from the same root, which ODB states was an openwork silver lamp. Perhaps
its construction was such that the wicks were in multiples of three.

cantrella (112:13,17 only). Ducange 11.107 (s.v. cantulla), suggests it is for cannula y but
Ducange’s editor suggests that cantulla may be from Greek KavOfj A.iov, a type of vessel,
and that it may be the boat-shaped container for storing grains of incense. If so, it will be

310

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

the same as (or a diminutive of) cantra, see ‘incense-boat’ below.

carbuncle ( carbunculus , 107:37), perhaps any fiery-red precious stone (probably including
the ruby, hyacinth, garnet). At Ezekiel 28.13 the Vulgate uses it where RSV has
‘carbuncle’ (but at Exodus 28.18 and 39.11 it corresponds to RSV ‘emerald’).

cercellus (103:25), i.e. circellus. The objects seem to be too heavy (30 jewels were
suspended from them) to be earrings, the meaning given by Niermeyer in 14th-century
Italian usage. Ducange 11.269, citing the LP, gives French ‘cerceau’; perhaps ‘circlet’ in
English.

chevrons {gammadias)\ 33 occurrences in lives 100, 103-6). Cf. 98:65 where (n. 118) it
is suggested that ‘pointed arches’ might be meant. Ducange IV.22, citing lives 98 and 103,
admitted that the contexts are not enough to elucidate their nature; but, at gamma 2, he
stated without qualification that gamma is the same as gammadium and is a decoration
shaped like the Greek upper-case letter. This must be right; the decoration is the cross
gammadion, or fylfot (swastika) pattern. The LP (83.2, BP 79) also has gammula ,
presumably a diminutive of gamma, hence the translation ‘chevron’.

clamasterii (105:14 only); some kind of pendants. Ducange 11.348 (s.v. clamacterius)
wanted to read cremasterios, from Greek Kpfpacrxrj pcq, ‘bullae, or other adornments
hanging from lights of this kind’; Greek Kpepaaxrf p is ‘suspender’, and Kpcpaaxrf piov
is ‘a drop in a necklace’ (cf. Liddell & Scott with citations). Ducange also gave two
occurrences in a bull of Benedict IX in 1033: candelas vero pendentes cam clamasteriis
et cicindellas ad sufficientiam ..., and ... clamateriis.

cluster (105:13,60) butro, a lighting fixture of some kind; cf. 98:30 with n. 76.

Comes-book (112:13). A ‘companion’, or lectionary giving the extracts of scripture to be
read at mass in full and in order, to save searching for them in full texts of the scriptural
books concerned. It often omitted the gospel lessons, which were in a separate book used
by the deacon, and merely gave the readings needed by subdeacons or lectors. The oldest
reference to a book of this kind is in Valila’s charter, published in Duchesne I.CXLVII
col. 1 line 49. See ‘liturgical books’.

consuetudinarii4s (112:11); this must be ‘a book customarily used’ (not the person who
customarily did the readings). Note also how the compiler has already used consuetudo
or similar forms three times within this chapter.

cornice (100:19); regularise a cross-beam at the iconostasis.

counts: the following are mentioned (see index): Adalbert, Adalgis, Bernard, Boso, John,
Maurinus, Vuldo, Wifrid. All except for Adalbert occur together at 104:14, and are the
group of unnamed counts at 104:8.

dependants (familiae) occur at 100:18 (twice), 22; at 105:80 in connexion with the
Corsican volunteers; at 108:2 as belonging to Hadrian II (before his election); familiares
occur at 112:7.

dextra (105:104 only, described as Saxon) Without citing the LP, Ducange defines
dextrum as a kind of measure, French ‘dextre’. This appears to have been a measure of
length or area, not one of capacity. The context is insufficient to elucidate the meaning.

GLOSSARY

311

The LP elsewhere has Saxon bowls {gabatae ), but here a bowl (not described as Saxon)
occurs almost immediately after.

digitiae (103:26 only); evidently finger-shaped pendants on a necklace (cf. Ducange

III. 116); cf. buticulae above.

domucella (diminutive of domusculta)\ Balnearola is mentioned at 105:97.

dukes; two are mentioned: Gregory, duke of Rome, 106:10 (note how he is ‘sent’ on a
mission by the pope), and Lambert, duke of Spoleto, 108:20. The former is the leader of
the Roman militia; the latter’s status is that of a Lombard ruler, subject (when it suited
him) to the emperor. At 107:33 is a reference to the duke of Ravenna’s rights in elections
to the archbishopric there.

exagia (105:76 only). Apart from the meanings ‘weighing’ and ‘an assay of weights’ (the
word is the origin of English ‘assay’ and ‘essay’), Niermeyer gives exagium as ‘a weight
apparently smaller than an ounce’ and cites uncias tres et exaja dua in a document of the
year 991. But it is likely to be significantly larger than the English ‘grain’.

gemelliones (103:32 only). Yet another word for some kind of sacred vessels. Ducange

IV. 51 cites the LP and Ordo Romanus 1 c. 21 (now, Andrieu, 2.73); that chapter, dealing
with which officials are in charge of which liturgical items, lists amae and scyphi along
with gemelliones , as here in the LP (‘from the Saviour’s church the chief mansionarii take
by hand, and the bearers carry, the handbasin, paten for daily use, chalice, scyphi ,
pugillares and other gold ones and silver gemelliones , silver cullender and gold one and
another large silver one, silver amae , chant-book and other gold and silver vessels, gold
and silver candlesticks’). Ducange cites gemellarium from Augustine (in Ps. 80), notes the
identity of this with gemellio , and records the suggestion that it contained a double
measure. Certainly the word must be connected with geminus , twin.

hegumenus ; in these lives only Theognostus occurs (108:35); for his functions see
108:n.90.

images, designs, representations (possibly three-dimensional is the icon of St Vitalis,
107:36). The following analytical index of icons, objects and the contents of figurative
designs (mainly on textiles), may be of use (see also chevrons, lattice-work, lily):

God 103:18; Christ (Saviour, Redeemer), 100:6,26,35, 103:14, 104:26A,30B,34,34B,
35,36A, 105:21,24,33,34,44,57,75,87-89,95,108, 106:21, 107:12,18,79; annunciation,
103:27,106:27; incarnation, 104:20; birth, 100:12,33, 103:10,16,17,20,27,33, 104:20(7),
105:59, 106:24; presentation ( hypapante ), 103:16, 106:27; with the teachers, 106:27;
baptism, 100:33, 103:10,16; feeding of 5000, 105:89; Palm Sunday, 100:34,37; Last
Supper, 103:37; passion, 100:38,39; resurrection, 100:23,29,33,38,39,
103:10,11,16,17,20,33, 104:35,36A, 105:14,33,56, ascension, 100:34; descent of Holy
Ghost, 100:34;

cross (design): 100:6,12,13,20,24-28,39, 103:11,26, 104:35,36A,

105:10,24,33,36,37,42-5,63,65-7,87,95,104, 106:22,33; cross (object), 103:9, 104:33,
105:17,28,31,56,75,83,104, 106:27,28, 107:12,13,17,79,80, 112:6,16,17; crucifix,

105:46,89,104; cross-adorned (silk) 100:12,20,21,24,27, 103:15,20-22,28,29, 107:11,14;

archangels, 100:26,103:18; Cherubim, 105:34; angels (designs), 100:12,20, 104:26A,
105:95, 107:79; angels (objects), 105:64;

StMary, 100:12,23,25,27,29,32, 103:25,33,104:38A, 105:10,11,44,108; birth, 100:35,
104:20(7); assumption, 100:34,35, 106:24;

312

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

prophets, 105:11,45; Daniel, 103:21,22; John the Baptist, 103:41;
apostles, 100:8,26, 103:18, 104:26A,30B, 105:34,44,87,108, 107:18; evangelists,
105:44; disciples, 105:89; Peter, 100:23,27, 105:14,24,33,34,44,87, 107:18; receiving
keys, 105:95; release by angel, 100:5; miracles, 105:105; preaching, 105:55; passion
103:13,105:95; Paul, 100:27,103:30,105:33,34,44,87, 107:18; passion, 103:13, 105:95;
Andrew, passion 103:13,105:24,33; John the Evangelist, 103:41;Mark, 103:18; Stephen,
105:45; Zacchacus, 103:16;

Cosmas & Damian, 100:25 (with 3 brothers), 103:12; Gorgonius, Tiburtius, 103:7;
Gregory (= George?), 103:14; Laurence, 105:57; Processus and Martinian, 100:6,23;
Quattuor Coronati, 105:14,22; Claudius, 105:57; Nicostratus, 105:57; Sebastian, 103:7,14;
Synzygius, 105:75; Tiburtius & Valerian, 100:20; Vitalis, 107:36;

Silvester, 104:34B,35,36A; Martin, 104:34B,35,36A, 105:21;
virgins, 100:10, 104:38A; Agatha, 105:21; Caecilia 100:20; Petronilla, 105:24
saints, 105:45,88; miracles, 100:8, 105:105; men, 103:11, 105:9,10,36,37,97
Gregory IV, 103:18,33; Leo IV, 105:14,21,22,24,33,56,57,59,75,87,89,95; Lothar,
emperor, 105:33; Louis the Pious, emperor, 103:27;

basilisks, 112:13; birds, 105:9; dolphins (decoration?), 105:67; ducks 103:11; eagles,
103:10,11,17,20-22, 105:9,15,23,36,37,44,57,63,89,95, 112:13; feathers, 103:43;

fledglings, 104:37A; griffins, 103:10,16,17,21,29,41, 106:25; horses, 103:11, 104:36A;
lambs, 105:67; lions, 103:11,15,17,26,28,29, 105:13, 105:106 (on a lectern), 106:21,
107:11,16,17, 112:13; lioncubs, 103:26; ostrich-eggs, 105:104; peacocks, 100:12,
105:9,10, 107:18; pheasants, 103:43; serpents, 103:26, 106:21; unicorns, 103:10;

almonds, 105:108, 106:31; apples (design), 103:10; leaves, 103:18; melon, 107:17;
palms (decoration), 105:66; pine-cone, 103:26; roses 100:20, 103:11, 104:36A, 106:33,
107:11,18; trees, 103:11,17, 105:9, 107:18; vine 105:97;

Leonine City, 105:95; gospels (design), 103:13; keys, 100:6, 103:22; lamps, 100:10;
medallions, 100:20,105:34,61; roundels, 105:104,107,109,106:34; shield, 107:18;swords
(design), 103:10,11; (object), 106:34, 112:10; wheels, 103:11, 105:9;

unspecified, 100:5,6,10,19,31,35-7, 101:3, 103:5,7,12,14,15, 104:23,25B,37A,

105:37.84.97,108, 106:30,33,34.

imizilum (100:35), imizilo 100:35,36, mizine 105:109, mizinum 107:16; the context is
always textiles. Ducange, IV 299, records the idea that in these places the word refers
either to a soft silk called ‘ermesino’ in Italian, or to ‘byssus’. A possibility is ‘ermine’,
the fur of the stoat, white as symbol of purity, said to derive either from Latin ‘mus
Armenius’ or from Old High German ‘harmin’ (German ‘Hermelin’).

incense-boat: cantra , 105:10,58, 106:22,26,27, all in the context of censers or incense; the
meaning ‘incense-boat’ seems certain. See above on cantrella, which does seem to be
‘incense-boat’. Note also that in Life 104 cantara occurs in the context of a censer and
is taken in the translation as equivalent to cantra , not as canthera , ‘chandelier’. But at
112:10 a cantra ‘hangs’, and the context at 112:15 is no help. At 112:10 alone, at first
sight, the meaning ‘incense-boat’ seems awkward; how could it have been of any use on
top of a pergola? Perhaps it was fixed on one of the columns of the pergola low enough
for the incense to be placed in it or taken from it for burning. Ducange II. 104-5 has
canterata , a type of vessel, or vessel-shaped container for water, Italian ‘catero’; and
cantharus, § cantrum, a vessel for wine.

iugulum (107:13 only, but cf. sugulum, below); Ducange IV 446 cites 107:13, recording
the notion, as far-fetched, that it was a small iugum , ‘yoke’, made of gold, to remind those
in the basilica of the text ‘My yoke is easy...’.

GLOSSARY

313

lattice-work (cancelli, ‘lattice, bars, balustrade, grating’); at 105:88 and 106:33, with roses
also mentioned, the word must refer to decoration. But at 105:94 the context is railings,
and though the meaning could be decorative (and the translation so takes it), the word
might mean ‘chancel-rails’.

lily: lilium (but at 105:57 gilium and at 105:66, twice, giliis , with the Italian phonetic
change, cf. Ducange IV.68). Usually this refers to the capital of a column (e.g. 105:61,66)
though at 100:5 it is a decoration. At 105:57, the meaning ‘capital’ is hardly plausible;
it cannot be suspended; Ducange has a word gillo, ‘earthenware vessel’, scarcely relevant
here; nor is it easy to make anything from the military usage recorded for lilium in Caesar
BG 7.73.8, a sort of defence consisting of several rows of pits, in which stakes were
planted, rising only 4 inches above ground. Krautheimer, Corpus 4.3, paraphrases 105:57
as a silver crown to be suspended from a pergola standing before the altar; this may be
guesswork. In view of the next note, perhaps the ‘lily’ is the ‘fastener’ on which the
decorative melons are suspended.

lily and hook (lilio et uncino , 103:26, lilium et uncinu , 105:88, in both places of a crown
with chains and a dolphin; and uncinus alone, also in 103:26 and connected with chains).
Uncinus is certainly ‘hook’: Ducange VIII.367 cites these passages and defines it as uncus
cui inhaerent catenulae\ he cites glossaries giving repagulum, reticulus. In these contexts,
and perhaps in 105:57 (see last note), ‘lily’ seems to mean some kind of fastener;
Professor Scott concurs with this; Dr Cheesman suggests that ‘lily and hook’ might rather
refer to a repeated decorative design.

liturgical books mentioned: Scriptural: Comes-book {q.v.), 112:13; epistle-book, 106:32
(partly Greek), 112:15,17; gospel-books: 100:27, 104:38A, 105:86,105, 106:25,29,33
(Greek?), 107:30, 112:15; Heptateuch, 112:17; Histories, 105:105, 112:16; King(dom)s,
105:86,112:16,17; Prophets, 112:13; Psalter, 105:86,105; Solomon, 105:105,112:15,17.
Non-scriptural: Acts (of martyrs), 105:105, 112:13,15; Antiphonary, 105:105; Homilies,
105:86,105, of Chrysostom, 112:15, of Gregory, 112:11,16; (readings and responsories,
112:10); Sacramentary, 105:105; Sermons, 112:17. At Constantinople there was a
‘guardian of the books’ (Paul, 108:37).

liturgical days mentioned: Christmas eve, 107:59, Christmas day, 105:16, St John the
Evangelist, 107:15, Epiphany 106:23, St Agnes 107:60-61, Palm Sunday, 100:34, Holy
Saturday, 106:32, Easter, 105:88, Saturday before Pentecost, 106:32, Assumption of the
Virgin 105:19, Octave of the Assumption 105:26, St Caecilia 104:22A.

liturgical texts quoted: collects 105:51,73.

lora, 103:27; Ducange V.143 explains lorum as the garment of an emperor or consul,
citing the Donation of Constantine, and Leo Grammaticus on the emperor Basil (Photius
hallows Basil, who is wearing a loron)\ he states that it amounts to the same as a papal
pallium, Greek copo<jx5piov. But this cannot be the meaning in this context. A plausible
guess for the present passage might be ‘thongs, strings, tapes’, 5 on each veil, to fasten
the veils in some way round the altar (Professor Scott concurs). They may have deserved
mention if they were gold filaments.

magister militum, master of the soldiers: the following are named (see index): Christopher,
Daniel, Gratian, Gregory, Mercurius, Peter, Sergius; cf. Caesarius.

mandati (108:36), so for the plural of mandator , a messenger in the Byzantine Empire.

314

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Although they were no mere public-service messengers, they normally performed real
functions and were not simply holders of a dignity; their insignia were a red stick; they
were headed by the protomandator :; cf. Bury 1911:113; Oikonomides 1972:90 n. 4, 298;
Haldon 1984:108 etc., 285-295.

manor (103:42) renders curtis ,; two are named.

masoricae (105:96 only): ‘three olive masoricae... worked in silk and colourfully
embroidered’ or, if not textiles, ‘depicted’; alternatively render ‘three masoric olives/olive-
berries’. Perhaps cf. 105:64: ‘a canopy of olive which hangs round the altar’. Note that
Wigbertof Toul, Vita Leonis IXpapae 2.6, Watterich 1862:157 (also in AaSS Apr. 2.648-
665; in fact written by Cardinal Humbert) mentions a scyphus of precious mazer ; and a
Jumieges charter of 1077 (Vernier 1916:1.85 no. 30) uses the adjective mazerinus with a
scyphus. In these two examples, mazer is maplewood or the like. Similarly, for the present
passage, Ducange V.295 cited with little approval the notion that ‘masoric’ is an Arabic
word for Egyptian; he preferred to see the word as a spelling of mazerica, and the olive
not as the product of an olive-tree but as a kind of jewel or a large nodule made out of
‘mazer’, or from the stone ‘murra’, and cited the example from Wigbert. If this is right,
the alternative translation given above would have to be adopted. But how, then, can the
objects ( oleae ), if made of maplewood, have also been worked in silk and colourfully
embroidered? This can hardly be said of objects of either maplewood or precious stone.
The objects must surely be textiles. The translation printed therefore takes ‘olive’ as an
adjective, and masoricae as an unknown noun. The context suggests some kind of curtains
hanging round three sides of an altar, not dangling baubles. Pliny, NH 37.5.20 §77, has
berylli oleagini to mean ‘olive-coloured beryls’ which shows that the notion of ‘olive’ can
refer to colour (and, admittedly, be applied to precious stones).

matroneum (103:32): women’s area or section in a church, cf. Niermeyer; cf. LP
Symmachus (53:8, BP 45); but see 100: n. 82. Either a women’s enclosure, or possibly
the site where, across a chancel-screen, the clergy would accept the women’s gifts; see
Mathews 1962:73ff, Krautheimer, Corpus 3.69.

melon ( melum , 107:17), must be Greek (irjA.ov, though the expected Latin melum seems
elsewhere to be supplanted by meloZ-onis. At any rate a finial over the canopy consisting
of a ball with a cross must surely be intended. Cf. mela at 105:57, again decorative,
though in a different context. At 105:55 malum (apple) occurs in the functional sense of
bell-clapper.

missa in the singular is used only twice 108:10, 112:8, to mean ‘mass’, which is otherwise
always plural missae.

mizine (105:109); mizinum (107:16); see imizilum.

monocossis (105:104 only, as monocossim, evidently an accusative form). Ducange V.295,
citing this passage, recorded as an empty guess the emendation mancosus, and suggested
that it was a precious stone of some kind

necklace; in 103:26 this renders morena. The murena is a fish, but Jerome ( Ep . 24.3)
already records the diminutive murenula as a colloquial word for necklace, and elsewhere
uses it with this meaning. At 103:37 (as at 98:25) ‘necklace’ renders siclo.

needlework (105:10,58) renders acupictile, in the one place referring to a veil, in the other

GLOSSARY

315

to a panel in a textile. Servius gives acupictae as the name of certain kinds of garments;
cf. Virgil, Aeneid 11.777. Isidore, Orig. 19.20, states that an acupicta garment is one
worked or decorated with a needle, and is also called Phrygian, from the people renowned
for their skill at such embroidery.

net, 106:31,33; a kind of lighting-fixture.

notch (nusca, 107:51). The word is Germanic in origin (now Nuschel); Niermeyer, and
Ducange V.27, give ‘fibula’; but even in its non-anatomical meaning (‘clasp, buckle, kind
of bracelet, a woman’s ornament’) this does not suit the context. Professor Scott concurs
that, despite the absence of this precise meaning for nusca , ‘notch’ seems the sensible
translation.

office (scrinium), 107:23,41,48, 108:34,40; the only scriniarius mentioned is Theodore
106:11.

pallium (108:5).

patrician: occurs in these lives for no living individual, only for Belisarius (112:6).

petinantes (103:26 only); despite the spelling the word must be connected with pecten ,
‘comb’. Ducange VI.296 explained it as referring to spokes inserted into the necklaces
( q.v .) mentioned in the section. Perhaps ‘radial spokes’; or perhaps, since no number is
given with them, the word is a general one to cover the various elements of necklaces,
buticulae, buticellae, and digitiae (i qq.v .), for which the numbers are given.

pint ( sextarius , 112:19; cf. pint-pots, sextaria , 104:34). Strictly, the sixth part of a congius
(itself an eighth of an amphora , or 12 heminae or about 206 cubic inches or nearly six
pints English), liquid measure; or the sixteenth part of a modius (itself the sixth of a Greek
medimnus ), dry measure.

pommel; the word renders bulla at 104:33 (on bowls, cf. n.65), 105:10 (golden, on
textiles), 105:14 (gilt, with jewels, on crowns), 59 (with chains, round a thurible), 62
(gold, in a diadem), 88 (with chains and jewels, on crowns).

prases (105:10 and frequently), green precious stones, not excluding emeralds though
these appear as smaragdi. In 105:87 and elsewhere the adjective prasinus is used with
textiles (the dictionaries want ‘leek-green’, but ‘green is sufficient: the LP nowhere uses
viridis).

Propitiaiorium (six times in life 100: cc. 6,10,11,19,31,38; otherwise only at 105:109).
It occurs four times in Vulgate Exodus and in Hebrews 9.5, where English versions give
‘mercy seat’; ninth-century writers have applied the word, however they understood it, to
something connected with an altar. Ducange VI.533 suggested it was the same as the
canopy ( ciburium ) which covered the confessio and the whole altar, just as (he stated) the
Ark of the Covenant was covered by the Propitiatorium or Oraculum, which is also called
in Exodus the lid or cover of the Ark. But in 100:11 and 19 it is clearly distinct from the
canopy. Niermeyer has ‘plateau on top of the altar’. Duchesne, n. 23 on 100:19, takes it
to be the facing or revetment of the altar. For 100:11 Krautheimer has a ‘panel’ or
‘frontale’ for the altar; and for 100:31 he gives ‘altar-frontal’ {Corpus 2.310, 319, 4.3).
This seems at least a plausible interpretation. Note that at 100:38 and 105:109 it is
‘spanoclist’ (<y.v), while at 100:6 silver sheets are added to it.

316

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

psilliae (100:20 only). There are three possible bases for interpretation. Firstly ‘shaggy
cloths’: psila is said to be a covering shaggy on one side (Lewis & Short cite Lucilius),
derived from Gk Secondly, Ducange V1.555, citing the LP, commented that

TtMx>v is Greek for a bracelet or armband, but could not see the relevance of this to
altarcloths, unless they were sown on as a fringe (could the word have meant ‘tassels’?).
Thirdly, Acta Sanctorum (Maii IiI.398, the life of Paschal) emended psillia to psyllia , and
took it to mean purple neatly spattered with small spots, the spots taking their name from
the shape of fleas (vj/uAAa is a ‘flea’), but noted that there is also a plant called v|/\5>Aiov
(plantago psyllium, flea-wort), and that the ornamentation may have resembled the leaves
of this plant.

refined gold (105:34) renders obrizum (as at 97:89,90,93 twice, 96,98:6,110). Niermeyer
has ‘of fine gold’, citing Benveniste 1953. The Vulgate uses obrizum at Isaiah 13.12
where most English versions now give ‘gold of Ophir’. The Vulgate uses Ophir at 1
Kings 9.28, 10.11, 22.49, 1 Chr. 29.4; LXX Isaiah has 6 ^v0o<; 6 k Iou<|>ip; and elsewhere
Eoo^tp or Zco<t>r|p. Though clearly a place name originally, it is very unlikely that obrizum
was seen as a reference to Ophir in the 8th and 9th centuries, so the translation avoids
‘gold of Ophir’.

regionary; the only one named is Theodore 107:1-2 (where see n. 1).

repida (-/, - ae ?) (107:18); the word is a hapax of totally unknown meaning (Ducange
VII. 130). The context might suggest some kind of handles, or (perhaps more likely)
precious stones.

rhodian (103:11), de rodino , of three veils; Niermeyer cites this passage only, and gives
‘rosa dyed material, from Rhodos’. At 106:28 occurs diarodina (without citing the
passage, Niermeyer gives ‘rosa-dyed’), where the translation accepts that colour is
involved and renders Thodian red’). Yet in view of the occurrences of forms like tyrian,
alexandrian, etc., the reference may be to a material rather than to a dye. Lewis & Short
cite unguentum rhodinum from Pliny 13.1.2 s. 9 (‘rose-salve’) and oleum rhodinum from
Pliny 15.7.7. s. 30 (‘oil of roses’); in neither case is a colour involved. If this is true in
the LP, translate ‘red rhodian’ rather than ‘rhodian red’.

sacellarius : Basil 108:37, an official of the church at Constantinople.

secretarium\ for 103:14 Krautheimer renders ‘sacristy’, as he does for 108:25, where, at
least, it is probably not the meaning, since a formal meeting was held in it. It occurs also
at 106:30 (a portico and baptistery with a secretarium) and at 107:52 (S. Maria in
Cosmedin) in conjunction with a triclinium and parlours ( caminatae ).

secundicerius : Hadrian 106:10-11; second in command (after the primicerius) of the
notaries.

shirt ( camisa , 106:34); possibly a liturgical ‘alb’.

silfori (107:81 only; the MSS have sifori)\ Ducange VII.488 cites this passage and Leo
Ostiensis 1.29: ‘moreover a silk tunic (q.v.) de silfori' \ see above, s.v. ‘beaker’, for another
version of the same story about Siconulf stealing a tunic de silfori. Ducange gives (and
the MGH editor, Waitz, accepts) silfori as from afX^ri, referring to the insect blatta, and
with an added Lombardic termination. The translation renders the relatively common
blatta as ‘purple’, but retains silfori since the compiler’s use of such a rare word may

GLOSSARY

317

mean that he did not regard it as fully synonymous.

Spanish, spaniscus; first in the LF at 103:11, then 105:9, 67 (twice), 86, 97, 105 (all of
vela or vestes ); and 106:27 when one hangs over an altar. Ducange VII.540 defines as
partnus hispanicus\ but in the last case listed the meaning does not seem to fit, since the
object is given a weight, which is never the case for textiles in the LP; perhaps the text
there is corrupt - a spanoclist object?

spanoclist', as in LECP the word is transliterated. In lives 100-112 it is used of a regnum
(diadem) at 100:10,106:27, and of a propitiatorium at 100:38,105:109. Ducange VI1.51
(a crown closed on top, &7iavc6 kXekjtoc;) may be right, despite the doubts expressed in
LECP (98 n. 115). Krautheimer, Corpus 3.235, renders ‘jewel-incrusted covered gold
crown’.

spatharius : protospatharii mentioned are Arsabir 107:18,38, Sisinnius 108:35; spatharii
are Basil 108:23-32, Eustathius 108:35, John (also a secretary) 108:37, Strategis 108:37,
Theodosius 108:59; spatharii in general, 108:36. They are white-robed in 108:36-7. The
kind of sword ( spatha ) from which their name derived occurs at 106:34 and 112:10.

squat chandelier (107:12), (cantharus) sessilis; Ducange VII.459 (not citing LP) defines
sessilis from glossaries as ‘short in stature’ (because a short person might appear to be
sitting; cf. Ovid: ‘if you are short you should sit, in case if you stand you seem to be
sitting’). Perhaps; but had the LP’s compiler read these glossaries? If he meant ‘small’ he
had other ways of saying it. The meaning is more likely to be what in English is called
a ‘standard lamp’, a chandelier which ‘stands’ (or ‘sits’) on the ground rather than one
which hangs from a beam or wherever; cf. LP Vigilius (61:2, BP 56, where Belisarius
presented to St Peter’s ‘two great silver-gilt candlesticks which still stand today before St
Peter’s body’). The translation avoids ‘sessile’ which does not have this meaning in
English, and ‘standard’ since the Latin concept is sitting, not standing, and adopts ‘squat’
which means sitting and also connotes Ducange’s meaning.

staupi (107:80), cups of some kind; from an old Teutonic root staupo-. English ‘stoup’
in this sense is related.

strati (108:36), so for the plural of strator , ‘groom, squire, equerry’. They were members
of a Byzantine palatine schola already in the 6th century. The title is attested as a dignity
perhaps in the 7th century; but they were functionaries and not merely dignitaries;
commissions could be purchased; the insignia were a gold whip adorned with precious
stones; at least from the time of Constantine V their schola came under the protostrator ,
who gained importance from his frequent contact with the emperor, and by the Uth
century had become one of the greatest state officials; see Bury 1911:113; Oikonomides
1972:90 n. 6, 298-9, 337-8; Haldon 1984:108 etc.

sugulum (112:15 only). Duchesne cites no variants (there are only two MSS anyway). The
old editions printed sagulum , with which spelling Ducange cited the word from LP, but
offered no suggestion as to its meaning, presumably because he took it in its classical
sense as a diminutive of sagum\ Lewis & Short give ‘small military cloak, usually the
purple-coloured one of the general’, citing Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Virgil etc.
(Niermeyer offers ‘blanket’). Perhaps therefore ‘cloak’, even ‘purple cloak’. But this does
not seem a suitable object to hang from a diadem. Krautheimer, Corpus 4.3, paraphrases
this passage: ‘a jewelled and enamelled gold cross to hang from a crown above the altar’,
but this does not solve the problem of sugulum. Is there a connexion with the mysterious

318

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

iugulum (see above) at 107:13?

superista : only Gratian is named, 105:110-112, 106:11.

tribunal (103:32 only); the word refers to a high-level (elevated) sanctuary (so Niermeyer,
Krautheimer), the meaning being derived from tribunal in the sense of ‘gallery, platform’.
Cf. Ordo Romanus 6.21 (Andrieu, 11.244): ‘the pontiff should come to the tribunal and
bow his head opposite the altar’.

triclinium : Gregory IV’s at the Lateran, 103:15; one at S. Maria in Cosmedin, 107:52; and
the Golden Triclinium (in chrisotriclinio ) at Constantinople, 108:38.

tunic ( saraca , 106:34); Niermeyer, s.v. sarica 1, ‘tunic (primitively a silken, later a fine
linen or woollen one)’. See note on beaker.

vestiarium, a bureau at the Lateran, occurs at 104:25A (it contains an oratory of St
Caesarius), and in the plural at 112:6-7. None of its chief officials are named in these
lives, though there is a general reference to the competence of the vestiarius to act at
Ravenna, 107:34 (where see n. 66).

Worthies ( axiomatici , 108:5 only); Ducange 1.502 defines as magistrates, magnates, chief
men, citing glossaries, the present passage in LP, Anastasius, Hist. Eccl , John the Deacon,
Vita S. Greg. 1.25, and the Liber Diurnus.

319

BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. Adelson and R. Baker, ‘The Oath of Purgation of Pope Leo III in 800’, Traditio 8
(1952), 35-80.

C. M. Aheme, ‘Sergius IP, New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967), 13, 112.

S. S. Alexander, ‘Studies in Constantinian Church Architecture’, Rivista di archeologia
cristiana 47 (1970), 28Iff.

A. Amore, / martiri di Roma (Rome, 1975).

M. V. Anastos, ‘The Papal Legates at the Council of 861 and their Compliance with the
wishes of the Emperor Michael IIP, Armos (Thessalonica, 1990), 1.185-200.

M. Andrieu, ‘Les ordres mineurs dans l’ancien ritromain’. Revue des sciences religieuses
5 (1923), 235-274.

M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age y Spicilegium Sacrae Lovaniense,
6tudes et documents, fascicules 11, 23-4, 28-9 (5 volumes, Leuven, 1931-61).

M. Andrieu, ‘La chapelle de S. Grdgoire dans I’ancienne basilique vaticane’, Rivista di
archeologia cristiana 13 (1936), 61-101.

M. Armellini (ed. 3 by C. Cecchelli), Le Chiese di Roma dal secolo IV alXIX y 2 volumes
(Rome, 1942).

G. Amaldi, ‘Giovanni Immonide e la cultura a Roma al tempo di Giovanni VIII’,
Bollettino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il medioevo 68 (1956), 33-89.

G. Amaldi, ‘Anastasio’, Dizionario Biografico degli Jtaliani 3 (1961), 25-37.

F. Baix, ‘Benoit IIP, Dictionnaire d histoire et de geographie ecclesiastique 8 (1935), 14-
27.

J. Baldwin, Christianity through the thirteenth century (New York, 1970).

K. A. Barbouskos, ‘Pc6pr| kcu Kcovaxavtivou no\iq ziq ta pouXyapucct 7ipdypaxa’,
Armos (Thessalonica, 1990), 1.277-280.

H. G. Beck, ‘Nicholas P, New Catholic Encyclopedia 10 (New York, 1967), 441.

H. G. Beck, ‘The Byzantine Church in the Age of Photius’ in F. Kempf et al. ed.. The
Church in the Age of Feudalism , Handbook of Church History, ed. H. Jedin and J.
Dolan, volume 3 (New York and London, 1969), 174-193.

E. Benveniste, ‘Le terme obryza et la m£tallurgie de For’, Revue de philologie , 27 (1953),
122 - 6 .

C. Bertelli, La Madonna di Santa Maria in Trastevere, storia, iconografia, stile di un
dipinto romano dell'ottavo secolo (Rome, 1961).

J. J. Berthier, Leglise de Sainte-Sabine a Rome (Rome, 1910).

O. Bertolini, ‘Osservazioni sulla Constitutio Romana e sullo Sacramentum cleri et populi
Romani dell’ 824’, Studi medievali in onore di Afntonino] de Stefano (Palermo, 1956).

O. Bertolini, ‘Adriano IP, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 1 (1960), 323-329.

O. Bertolini, ‘Benedetto IIP, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 8 (1966), 330-7.

O. Bertolini, ‘II ‘Liber Pontificalis” in La storiografia altomedievale (Spoleto, 1970),
387-455.

J. Bishop, ‘Bishops as marital advisors in the ninth century’ in J. Kirshner and S. Wemple
eds., Women of the Medieval World (Oxford, 1985), 54-84.

U. Broccoli, ‘Ostia Antica, S. Aurea, Gregoriopoli: spigolature suile vicende di Ostia dalla
tarda antichit& all’alto medio evo\ Lunario Romano XII: II Lazio nell'antichitd
romana , ed. R. Lefevre (Rome, 1982).

J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the ninth century (London, British
Academy Supplementary Papers, I, 1911).

C. Calisse, Storia di Civitavecchia (Florence, 1908).

Y. Congar, ‘S. Nicolas I CT : ses positions ecctesiologiques’, Rivista di storia della chiesa
in ItalialX (1967), 393-410.

F. Curschmann, Die alteren Papsturkunden des Erzbistums Hamburg, eine diplomatische

320

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Untersuchung (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1909).

F. Darsy, Santa Sabina (Le chiese di Roma illustrate 63-4) (Rome, 1961).

F. W. Deichmann and A. Tschira, ‘Das Mausoleum des Kaiserin Helena und die Basilika
der Heiligen Marcellinus und Petrus an der Via Labicana vor Rom’, JDAl 72 (1957),

44- 110.

H. Delehaye, Etude sur le legendier romain. Les saints de novembre et de decembre
(Brussels, 1936).

P. Delogu, ‘Strutture politiche e ideologia nel regno di Ludovico II’, Bollettino
dell ’Istituto Storico Jtaliano per il medioevo 80 (1968), 137-189.

G. B. de Rossi, Roma sotterranea cristiana , 3 volumes (Rome, 1864-77).

J. Devisse, Hincmar, archeveque de Reims, 845-882 , 3 volumes (Geneva, 1975-6).

P. Devos, ‘Anastase le Biblioth6caire: sa contribution k la correspondance pontificale; la
date de sa mort’, Byzantion 32 (1962), 97-115.

L. Duchesne, ‘Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-age III, Sainte-Anastase
Melanges de I'ecole francaise de Rome 1 (1887), 386-413 (= Scripta Minora, 1973,

45- 71).

L. Duchesne, ‘S. Maria Antiqua, Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-Sge VIII’,
Melanges de l 'ecole franqaise de Rome 17(1897) 13-37 (= Scripta Minora , 1973, 141-
165).

L. Duchesne, ‘Saint-Denis in Via Lata, Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-&ge
IX’, Melanges de I'ecole franqaise de Rome 20 (1900), 317-330 (= Scripta Minora ,

1973, 167-180).

L. Duchesne, ‘Vaticana: notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-age XV, Melanges
de I'ecole franqaise de Rome 22 (1902), 385-428 {- Scripta Minora , 1973, 201-44).

L. Duchesne, ‘Les monastdres desservants de S. M. Majeure’, Melanges de I’ecole
franqaise de Rome 27 (1907), 479-494 (= Scripta Minora , 1973, 329-44).

L. Duchesne, The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, A.D. 754-1073
(translation by A. H. Mathew of Les premiers temps de TEtai pontifical (754-1073),
London, 1908).

L. Duchesne, ‘Le culte romain des Quatre-Couronn6s (Santi Quattro)’, Melanges de
I’ecole franqaise de Rome 31 (1911), 231-246 (= Scripta Minora , 345-60).

L. Duchesne, Scripta Minora, etudes de topographie romaine et de geographie
ecclesiastique (Rome, Ecole franqaise de Rome, 1973).

E. DUmmler, Geschichte des ostfrankischen Reiches, 3 volumes (Leipzig, 1887-8).

J. Duhr, ‘Humble vestige d’un grand espoir de^u: Episode de la vie de Formose’, Revue
de sciences religieuses 42 (1954), 361-87.

F. Dvomik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX siecle (Paris, 1926).

F. Dvomik, The Photian Schism: history and legend (Cambridge, 1948).

F. Dvomik ‘Constantinople and Rome’, Cambridge Medieval History , volume IV
(1966[a]), 431-472.

F. Dvomik, ‘Which councils are ecumemcaW, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3 (1966[b]),
321-6 (= Photian and Byzantine ecclesiastical studies , Variorum, 1974, c. XX).

F. Dvomik, ‘Patriarch Ignatius and Caesar Bardas’, Byzantinoslavica 27.i (1966(c)), 7-22
(= Photian and Byzantine ecclesiastical studies. Variorum, 1974, c. XIX).

F. Dvomik, Byzantine missions among the Slavs. SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius
(New Brunswick, NJ, 1970).

F. Dvomik, ‘Photius, Nicholas I and Hadrian II, Byzantinoslavica 34.i (1973), 33-50 (-
Photian and Byzantine ecclesiastical studies, Variorum, 1974, c. IX).

P. Egidi, I monasteri di Subiaco, notizie storiche (Rome, 1904).

E. Ewig, ‘Climax and turning point of the Carolingian Age, 814-849’ in F. Kempf et al.
ed.. The Church in the Age of Feudalism (Handbook of Church History, ed. H. Jedin
and J. Dolan, volume 3, New York and London, 1969), 103-125.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

E. Ewig, ‘The Western Church from the Death of Louis the Pious to the End of the
Carolingian Period’, ibidem , 126-173.

G. Fantuzzi, Monumenti Ravennati de' secoli di mezzo per la maggior parte inediti, 6
volumes (Venice, 1901-4).

G. Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries. Notes for the history of the monasteries and
convents at Rome from the V through the X century , Studi di antichita cristiana XXIII
(Vatican, 1957).

R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology , (6 volumes, Leiden, 1964-6).

P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, ‘Note agiografiche’, Studi e Testi 24 (1912).

J. Fried, ‘Ludwig der Fromme, das Papsttum und die frankische Kirche’ in P. Godman
and R. Collins eds., Charlemagne's Heir (Oxford, 1990), 231-273.

A. P. Frutaz, II complesso monumentale di Sant’Agnese, ed. 5 (Rome, 1992).

H. Fuhrmann, ‘Eine im Original erhaltene Propagandaschrift des Erzbischofs Gunthar von
KOln (865)’, Archiv fur Diplomatik, Schriftsgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 4
(1958), 1-51.

H. Fuhrmann, Einfluss und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Falschungen (Schriften
der MGH 24), 3 volumes (Munich, 1972-4).

D. Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (Sigmaringen, 1990).

H. Geertman, More veterum, il Liber Pontificalis e gli edifici ecclesiastici di Roma nella
tarda antichita e nell'alto medioevo (Archaeologia Traiectina 10, Groningen, 1975,
also published in Dutch).

S. Gibson and B. Ward-Perkins, ‘The Surviving Remains of the Leonine Wall’, Papers
of the British School at Rome 47 (1979), 30-57 with plates III-VI, and 51 (1983), 222-
239 with plates XI-XII.

G. Giovannoni, ‘La chiesa vaticana di San Stefano Maggiore’, Atti Pont. Accademia
romana di archeologia, memorie 4, i (1934), 1-28.

W. J. Gianvell, Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinal Deusdedit (Paderbom, 1905).

H. GrSgoire, ‘The Amorians and Macedonians’, Cambridge Medieval History , volume IV
(1966), 105-152.

P. Grierson, ‘Carolingian Europe and the Arabs: the myth of the mancus’, RPBH 32
(1954), 1059-1074.

H. Grisar, Analecta Romana, dissertazioni, testi, monumenti dell'arte I (Rome, 1899).

H. Grisar, ‘Le testi dei SS Apostoli’, La Civilta Cattolica 58, 3 (1907), 457.

H. Grotz, Erbe wider Willen, Hadrian II (867-872) und seine Zeit (Vienna-Cologne-Graz,
1970).

R. Guilland, Etudes de topographie de Constantinople byzantine , 2 volumes in 1
(Amsterdam, 1969).

A. Guglielmotti, Storia della marina pontificia (10 volumes, Rome, 1886-93).

F. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians (Bonn, 1984).

L. Halphen, Charlemagne et I’empire carolingien (Paris, 1947).

W. Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankreich und in Italien (Paderbom,
1989).

K. Herbers, ‘Der Konflikt Papst Nikolaus’ I mit Erzbischof Johannes VII von Ravenna
(861)’, in P. J. Heinig (ed.), Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der Arbeit
am den Regesta Imperii (Cologne, 1991), 166ff.

L. Herding, ‘Kanoniker, Augustinerregel und Augustinerorden’, Zeitschriftfur katholische
Theologie 54 (1930), 335-59.

E. Hlawitschka, Franken , Alemannen, Bayern und Bergunder in Oberitalien 774-962
(Freiburg, 1960).

P. A. Holmes, ‘Nicholas I’s Reply to the Bulgarians Revisited’, Ecclesia Orans 1 (1990),
131-143.

C. HUlsen, Le Chiese di Roma nel medio evo (Florence, 1927).

322

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

J. Hyam, ‘Ermentrude and Richildis’, in M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson edd., Charles the
Bald (Aldershot, 1990), 154-168.

R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine (2nd ed., Paris, 1964).

E. H. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae, a study in liturgical acclamation and mediaeval ruler
worship (California, 1946).

P. F. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, I Roma (Berlin, 1906), II Latium (Berlin, 1907).

J. N. D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (1986).

S. Keynes & M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of Alfred and other contemporary
sources (Harmondsworth, 1983).

J. P. Kirsch, Die romischen Titelkirchen im Altertum , Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur
des Altertums 9 (Paderbom, 1918).

E. Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St Peter and St Paul (London, 1959).

S. Konecny, Die Frauen des Karolingischen Konigshauses (Vienna, 1976).

R. Kottje, ‘Kirchliches Recht und papstlicher Autoritatanspruch. Zu den
Auseinandersetzungen liber die Ehe Lothars II’, in H. Mordek, ed., Aus Kirche und
Reich: Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter. Festschrift fur F. Kempf
(Sigmaringen, 1988), 97-103.

R. Krautheimer, S. Corbett, W. Frankl, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae. The
Early Christian Basilicas of Rome (IV-IX Centuries), 5 volumes (Vatican, 1937-77).

R. Krautheimer, Rome: profile of a city, 312-1308 (Princeton, 1980).

R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals (California, 1983).

S. Kuttner, ‘Cardinalis: the history of a canonical concept’, Traditio 3 (1945), 129-214.

J. Labarte, Le palais imperiale de Constantinople (Paris, 1861).

F. Lanzoni, Le diocesi d Italia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII (an. 604), Studi
e Testi 35 (Faenza, 1927).

A. Lapotre, De Anastasio Bibliothecario sedis apostolicae (Paris, 1885).

A. Lapotre, ‘Adrien II et les fausses ddcretales’, Revue des questions historiques 27
(1880), 377-431.

P. Lauer, ‘Le po6me de la destruction de Rome’, Melanges de Tecole francaise de Rome
19 (1899), 307.

P. Lauer, ‘La cit6 carolingienne de Cencelle (L£opoIi)\ Melanges de Tecole francaise de
Rome 20 (1900), 147ff and plan.

P. Lauer, Le palais de Latran: etude historique et archeologique (Paris, 1911).

H. Leclercq, ‘Schola’, Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie 15 (1950),
1008-1013.

H. Leclercq, ‘Byzantium’, Dictionnaire d 'archeologie chretienne etde liturgie 2.i (1925),
1363-1454.

C. Leonardi, Studi Medievali 3 8 (1967), 59-192.

C. Leonardi, Anastasio Bibliotecario e Tottavo concilio ecumenico, Centro italiano di studi
sull’alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1987).

P. Liebaert, ‘Le reliquaire du chef de saint S6bastien\ Melanges de Tecole francaise de
Rome 34 (1913), 479f.

P. Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (London, 1971).

R. J. Loenertz, ‘Un prdtendu sanctuaire romain de S. Denys de Paris’, Analecta
Bollandiana 66 (1948), 118 f.

R. S. Lopez, ‘Silk industry in the Byzantine Empire’, Speculum 20 (1945), 1-42.

M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: triumphal ruler ship in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the
Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1966).

G. Mackie, ‘The Zeno Chapel - a prayer for salvation’. Papers of the British School at
Rome 57 (1989), 172-199 with plates XXXI-XXXVIL

R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms 751-987 (London, 1983).

C. A. Mango, The Brazen House: a study of the vestibule of the imperial palace of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

323

Constantinople (Copenhagen, 1959).

C. A. Mango, Le developpement urbainde Constantinople (IV* - VIf siecles) (Paris, 1985;
reprint with addenda, 1990).

T. F. Mathews, ‘An early Roman chancel arrangement and its liturgical uses’, Rivista di
archeologia cristiana 38 (1962), 71-95.

M. B. Mauck, ‘The Mosaic of the Triumphal Arch of S. Prassede: a liturgical
interpretation’, Speculum 62 (1987), 813-828.

R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia (Oxford, 1960).

G. Morin, ‘Les monastdres b6n6dictines de Rome au moyen age (suite et Fin)’, Revue
Benedictine 4 (1887), 351-6.

W. MUller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographic Istanbuls (Tubingen, 1977).

A. Muthesius, ‘A practical approach to the history of Byzantine Silk weaving, J.O.B. 34
(1984), 235-254.

J. L. Nelson, ‘Not bishops’ bailiffs but lords of the earth’, in D. Wood ed., The Church
and Sovereignty . Essays in Honour of Michael Wilks (Oxford, 1991).

J. L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (London, 1992).

D. M. Nicol, ‘The Byzantine view of Western Europe,’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 8 (1967), 315-339.

T. F. X. Noble, The Republic of St Peter: the birth of the papal state 680-825 ,
(Philadelphia, 1984).

T. F. X. Noble, ‘A new look at the Liber Pontificalis’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 23
(1985), 347-358.

F. A. Norwood, ‘The Political Pretensions of Pope Nicholas I’, Church History 15 (1946),
271-85.

W. Oakeshott, The Mosaics of Rome (London, 1967).

D. Obolensky, ‘The Empire and its Northern Neighbours’, Cambridge Medieval History
volume IV (1966), 473-518.

C. Odegaard, ‘The Empress Engelberge’, Speculum 26 (1951), 77-103.

R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965).

N. Oikonomides, ‘Silk Trade and Production in Byzantium from the sixth to the ninth
century: the seals of Konimerkiaroi’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986), 33-53.

N. Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance byzantine des DC et X siecles (Paris, 1972).

G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969).

M. Pagano and J. Rougetet, ‘II Battistero della basilica costantiniana di Capua (cosidetto
Catabulum ), Melanges de I’ecole franqaise de Rome 96 (1984), 987-1016.

P. Partner, The Lands of St Peter, the papal state in the middle ages and the early
Renaissance (London, 1972).

E. Perels, Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Papsttums im IX. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1920).

A. Petrucci, ‘Arsenio’, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 4 (1962), 339.

A. M. Piazzoni, ‘Biografie dei papi del secolo X nelle continuazioni del Liber
Pontificalis’, Mittellateinische Jahrbuch 24-25 (1989-1990), 369-382.

S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929).

M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a status symbol in antiquity (Brussels, 1970).

G. Rohault de Fleury, Le Latran au moyen age (Paris, 1877).

G. McN. Rushforth, ‘S. Maria Antiqua’, Papers of the British School at Rome I (1902),
1-123.

J. Ruysschaert, ‘L’oratoire romain de Formose (fin du IX U sidcle), son site et son plan
d’apr&s les relations Ciampini et Schelstrate de 1689’, Memoriam sanctorum
venerantes, Miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Victor Saxer , Studi di an tichita cristiana
48 (Vatican, 1992), 725-734.

St Scholastica's Abbey (tourist guide, ed. Lozzi, Rome, 1971).

324

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

L. Schiaparelli, ‘Le carte antiche dell’Archivo capitulare di S. Pietro’, ASR 24 (1901).

R. Schieffer, ‘Arsenius’, Lexikon des Mittelalters 1 (1980), 1054-5.

W. Schlesinger, ‘Die AuflOsung des Karlsreiches’, in H. Beumann ed., Karl der Grosse,
Lebenswerk und Nachleben, volume 1 (Dlisseldorf, 1965), 792-857.

A. Silvagni, ‘La basilica di S. Martino ai monti’, ASR 35 (1913), 329-88.

P. Stafford, ‘Charles, the Bald, Judith and England’, in M.T. Gibson and J.L. Nelson edd.,
Charles the Bald, Court and Kingdom (Aldershot, 1990), 139-153.

P. Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers (Atlanta and London, 1983).

N. Staubach, Das Herrscherbild Karls des Kahlen. Formen undFunktionen monarchischer
Reprasentation im friiheren Mittelalter (MUnster, 1982).

P. Styger, Romische Martyrergrufte , 2 volumes (Berlin, 1935).

R. E. Sullivan, ‘The papacy and missionary activity in the early middle ages’, Medieval
Studies 17 (1955), 46-106.

R. E. Sullivan, ‘Paschal I’, New Catholic Encyclopedia 11 (New York, 1967), 1048-9.

R. E. Sullivan, ‘Leo IV’, New Catholic Encyclopedia 8 (New York, 1967), 640-1.

G. Tomassetti, ‘Campana Romana’, in Archivio romano di storia patria 19 (1896), 111.

P. Toubert, Les structures du Latium medievale , 2 volumes (Paris, 1973).

J. M. C. Toynbee and J. Ward Perkins, The Shrine of St Peter and the Vatican
Excavations (London and New York, 1956).

W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (2nd ed., London
1962).

W. Ullmann, A short history of the papacy in the middle ages (London, 1972).

J.-J. Vernier, Charles de I'abbaye de Jumieges (825-1024) conservees aux archives de la
Seine inferieure , 2 volumes (Rouen, Soci6t6 de l’histoire de Normandie, 1916).

R. Vielliard, Les origines du titre de Saint-Martin-aux-Monts a Rome (Studi di antichita
cristiana 4, Vatican, 1931).

A. P. Vlasto, The entry of the Slavs into Christendom (Cambridge, 1970).

W. F. Volbach, Early Decorative Textiles (London, 1969).

J. M. Watterich, Pontificum romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX usque ad
finem saeculi XIII ab aequalibus conscriptae, 2 volumes (Leipzig, 1862).

S. F. Wemple, Women in Frankish Society (Philadelphia, 1981).

K. F. Werner, ‘Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen’, in W. Braunfels and P. E. Schramm
edd., Karl der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben, volume IV (Dilsseldorf, 1967), 403-
79.

C. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy (London, 1981).

R. Wisskirchen, ‘Zur Zenokapelle in S. Prassede’, Fruhmittelalterliche Studien 25 (1991),
96-108.

H. Zielinski, ‘Ein unbeachter Italienzug Kaiser Lothars 1 im Jahre 847’, Quellen und
Forschung aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 70 (1990), 1-22.

H. Zielinski, ‘Reisengeschwindigkeit und Nachrichtenlibermittlung als Problem der
Regestenarbeit am Beispiel eines undatieren Kapitulars Lothars I. von 847 Friihjahr
(846 Herbst?)’ in P.-J. Heinig ed., Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der
Arbeit an den Regesta Imperii (Cologne, 1991), 37-49.

H. Zimmermann, ‘Imperatores Italiae,’ in H. Beumann ed., Historische Forschungen fur
Walter Schlesinger (Cologne, 1974), 379-399.

A. Zucchi, Roma Domenicana, note storiche (Florence, 1938).

INDEX

(see also the Glossary, especially under ‘images’)

Ad ursum pileatum, cemetery of, Via
Portuensis (SS Abdon & Sennen),
107:53

Adalbert margrave and guardian of
Corsica, 104:44A

Adalbert (perhaps same as last), count,
106:8-12, 15-17, 19-20
Adalgis count, 104:14
Aemiliana’s titulus, 103:22, 106:15
[Aethelwulf] king of Saxons, 106:34
African region, 105:7
Agareni (cf. Saracens), 103:38,105:13,
55, 96

Agatho bishop of Todi, 106:9
Aginus bishop of Bergamo, 104:14
Aistulf king of Lombards, 100:15
Albano, 104:41A, 106:16, 108:9
Alexandria, 108:19, 46
Amadeus bishop of Penne, 104:14
Amalfi, men of, 105:49
Amalric bishop of Como, 104:14
Ambrose bishop of Lucca, 104:14
Amelia (Ameria), 105:82
Anagni, 105:76,106:6,107:39,108:10
Anastasius the librarian, 105:92,106:6,
8, 9, 10, 12-19, 108:10, 42-45, 60
Angilbert archbishop of Milan, 104:14
Antioch, 108:19, 46
Apostles’ church ad vincula, 103:17
Apostles, statues in Lateran palace,
107:48

Apostles James and Philip’s church,
103:22

Appian Gate, 100:16, 106:30
Aqua Salvia, 106:23 (cf. St
Anastasius’s monastery)

Holy Archangel’s deaconry, 100:28
Holy Archangel’s oratory (at the
Lateran), 100:29

Holy Archangel’s basilica on Mount
Faganus, 104:23
Arezzo, 105:91

Arsabir protospatharius, 107:18, 38
Arsenius, bishop, 106:6-8, 107:63,
108:42-43

Arsis, island at Porto, 105:76
Aurelia, 105:98
Austald, 108:21
Aventine Hill, 101:3

Bagnor^gio, 106:13
Balnearola, domucella, 105:97
Bardas Caesar, 108:22
Bartholomew archbishop [of
Narbonne], 104:16

Basil emperor, 107:76, 108:22-26, 28-
29, 32, 35-47, 59-60
Basil sacellarius, 108:37
Basil spatharius, 108:23-32
Belisarius, 112:6

Benedict III pope, 106:passim; 107:4,
5, 82, 108:3, 10

Benedict, brother of pope Sergius II,
104:40A-43A

Benevento/-ans, 104:17, 108:21
Bergamo, 107:45
Bernard count, 104:14, 106:8-20
Blera, 105:75
Bologna, 104:8, 112:18
Bomarzo, 107:74

Bonosus, father of pope Paschal I,
100:1

Boso count, 104:14

Boso, husband of Engeltrude, 107:48

Brescia, 105:91

Bulgarians, 107:68-75, 108:9, 46-50,
52-54, 56-7, 61-4
burgus of the English, 100:7

Caesarea in Cappadocia, 108:25
Caesarius, son of Sergius, ordinatus
super exercitum , 105:50
Callinicum, 106:26

Callistus’s titulus , 106:2, 5, 25 (cf. St
Mary’s Trastevere)

Campus Neronis, 104:47A, 106:11
Cantio bishop of Siena, 104:14
Cappadocia, 108:25
Castle of St Angelo, postern
overlooking, 105:73
Castrum Rotundum, 108:36
Centumcellae, 100:26, 105:99-102
Charles emperor (Charlemagne),
105:17

Charles [the Bald], king, 107:52
Charles [the Fat], emperor, 112:4
Christopher magister militum, 106:9
Clivus Argentarius, 107:15
Clivus Scauri, 103:28, 112:17
Colles iacentes, 100:17

326

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Cologne, 107:45

Constantinople, 106:33,107:18,19,38,
40, 70, 71, 75, 76, 108:18, 25-6,
28, 30-32, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 49-
50, 53, 56, 60, 62-3
Cora, 104:25B, 30A
Corsarum monastery (SS Symmetrius
& Caesarius), 105:25, 28, 58
Corsica, 104:44A
Corsicans in exile, 105:77-81
Cross, oratory of, at St Peter’s, 105:43,
107:17

Damasus’s titulus , 103:22

Daniel magister equitum, 105:110-112

Dardania, province and city, 108:53

decretals, 108:54

Domagoi, 108:59-60

Dominic bishop of Trevi, 107:74-75,

108:12, 54, 62

Donatus bishop of Fiesole, 104:14
Donatus bishop of Ostia, 107:70-72,
108:9, 34-60, 63-64
Draco’s curtis, house in, 103:42
Drogo archbishop of Metz, 104:8, 10,
14

Dyrrachium, 108:59

Ebbo, deposed archbishop [of Rheims],
104:16

Egyptians, 105:7
Elephantum, 103:12
Elihu, nickname of Hagano, 107:50
Elijah, 108:19
Emilia, 107:22, 25-6, 32
[Engelberga], wife of emperor Louis II,
108:13

Engeltrude, wife of Boso, 107:48
Englishmen, 100:7, 103:9, 107:54
Epirus Nova, 108:53
Epirus Vetus, 108:53
Eugene II pope, 101:passim, 102:4-5,
103:3, 104:4, 105:17
Eustathius, spatharius, 108:35

Felix 111 pope, 107:42

Felix archbishop of Ravenna, 107:23

Ferrata (at St Peter’s), 100:5

Fondi, 105:65

Fons Capellae, 104:8

Font at St Peter’s, oratory at, 105:43

Formosus bishop of Porto (later pope),

107:69-75, 108:9, 54, 61-62
France, 101:3, 107:46
Franks, 104:8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17,46A,
105:17, 110-11 2, 106:16, 108:56
Frascati, 105:37, 60, 62, 94, 106:28
Fratellus bishop of Camerino, 104:14
Frisians, 104:46A

Gabii, 108:9
Gaeta, men of, 105:49
Galeria, 104:47A
Galeria curds, house in, 103:42
Gauderic bishop of Velletri, 108:13
Gausprand bishop of Pistoia, 104:14
Geoige archbishop of Ravenna, 104:14
George bishop [of Bomarzo], 106:10
Gisus bishop of Fermo, 104:14
Golden Gate, 108:36
Gratian magister militum , superista ,
105:110-112, 106:11
Greek chant, 100:9; custom, 106:33;
language, 105:18, 106:33, 108:40,
112:14; monks, 100:9, 105:30,
108:16, 33; political term, 105:110-
111, 107:19, 38, 41, 72, 76, 108:
22, 43-4, 50-2, 56, 63-4; priests,
108:50-1, 56, 64; readings, 106:32;
schola of militia, 104:9; term of
abuse, 108:42
Gregoriopolis, 103:40
Gregory IV pope, 103:passim, 104:4,
105:3,4, 16, 17, 106:2, 107:56, 67,
108:1

Gregory magister militum, 106:9
Gregory duke, 106:10
Gregory, brother of archbishop John of
Ravenna, 107:26,50
Grimuald bishop of Bomarzo, 107:74-
75, 108:12, 54, 63-64
Gubbio, 106:6

Gunther archbishop of Cologne,
107:46-50

Guy (Wito), father of Lambert duke of
Spoleto, 108:20

Hadrian II pope, 108:passim, 112:1
Hadrian III pope, 112:3-4, 11, 19
Hadrian secundicerius of the Roman
church, 106:10-11
Hadrian priest, 106:14
Hadrian, father of pope Stephen V,
112:1,4,7

INDEX

327

Hagano bishop of Bergamo, 107:45, 50
[Helias, priest], representative of
patriarch of Jerusalem, 108:46, 50-
58, 63

Hilpian, 108:21

Hincmar archbishop ofRheims, 107:58

Ignatius patriarch of Constantinople,
107:19, 38-41, 70-2, 75-76,108:23-
25, 32, 34, 37-43, 46, 57-58, 60
Imola, 112:18

Iocia aqueduct (cf. Jovian aqueduct),
107:16

Irene, palace at Constantinople, 108:37
Ivrea, 105:91

Janiculum, 103:19
Jerusalem, 108:19, 46
Jerusalem church (Sessorian), 105:62,
64, 112:17

Jerusalem monastery at St Peter’s,
105:109

John archbishop of Ravenna, 105:91,
107:21-35, 50

John metropolitan ‘of Caesarea in
Cappadocia’ [of Sylaeum in
Pamphylia], 108:25-32
John bishop of Pisa, 104:14
John bishop of Ticinum, 112:4
John bishop [of Falerii?], 105:92
John priest, 106:14
John deacon, antipope, 104:5-6
John Hymmonides, 108:13
John a secretis and spatharius , 108:37
John, father of pope Gregory IV, 103:1
John count, 104:14
Jordan river, 100:33
Joseph bishop of Ivrea, 104:14,105:91
[Joseph archdeacon of Alexandria],
representative of his patriarch,
108:46, 50-58, 63

Jovian aqueduct, 104:21 A, cf. 107:16

Lambert duke of Spoleto, 108:20
Lamberts the, conspiracy of, 108:21
Landulf bishop [of Capua], 107:43
Lateran patriarchate/palace, 100:1, 22,
101:3, 102:3 -8, 103:4, 15, 35-7,
41, 104:5, 6, 25, 105:3, 6, 11, 16,
19, 50, 62, 110, 106:1, 5, 11, 13,
17, 18, 20, 107:2, 6, 7, 48, 81,

108:1, 5-7, 11, 14, 112:1, 4-6
Lazarus, monk, painter, Khazar, 106:33
Leo III pope, 100:2, 18, 29, 104:2-3,
105:11, 16-17, 69, 111
Leo IV pope, 105:passim, 106:2, 4, 18,
22, 107:3, 4, 37, 38, 108:3, 10
Leo bishop of Silva Candida, 108:9
Leo priest, 107:70-72
Leo, secretary of pope Nicholas,
107:40-1

Leonine City at St Peter’s, 105:54, 68-
74, 95, 106:12, 107:66
Leonine House, 107:30, 62
Leontius, father of pope Valentine,
102:1

Leopardus bishop of Ancona, 108:54,
62

Leopolis, 105:101-105, 109
litanies, 105:17, 72
Liutard bishop of Pavia, 107:26
Lombards, 100:15, 104:17, 105:20
Lothar emperor, 104:8, 15, 41 A,
105:33, 69, 80, 90-91, 106:6
Lothar II, king, 107:44-47
Louis II emperor, 104:8-11, 13, 15, 17,
18, 105:80, 90-91, 110-113, 106:6-
7, 107:5, 7-10, 23-28, 43, 108:6, 8-
9, 13, 17, 20, 42-43
Lupus bishop ofTeate (Chieti), 104:14

Magnaura, palace at Constantinople,
108:37

Maio bishop [of Priverno], 106:10
Manger, 100:37, 108:1
Marinus deacon (later pope), 107:70-
72, 108:34-64 (esp. 61-62), 112:2-
3, 11

Maruli, 105:62
Maurinus count, 104:14
[Megistus] bishop of Ostia, 106:16
Mercurius magister militum, 106:6-7, 9
Methodius patriarch of Constantinople,
108:34

Methodius metropolitan [of Gangra],
107:18

Methodius monachulus , 108:24
Metz, 107:46,49

[Michael] patriarch of Alexandria,
representative of, 108:46, 50-58, 63
Michael III emperor of Constantinople,
106:33, 107:18-19, 38, 40-41, 71-
72, 76, 108:22, 25-26, 28-32

328

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Michael (Boris) king of the Bulgarians,
107:68-69, 72-74,108:46-48,61-64
Milvian Bridge, 106:11
Misenus, bishop (5th century), 107:20,
42

Monterano, 112:16
Moreno, 105:62
Moses, 112:8

Naples, men of, 105:49-52
Nami, 107:16
Narrano, 105:62
Naumachia, 100:18
Needle, 103:35
Nepi, 108:13

Nicholas pope, 107:passim, 108:4-5,9-
10, 12, 14-15, 18-19, 23-35, 39,41-
43, 48-49, 54, 61

Nicholas bishop of Anagni, 105:92,
106:6-7, 9

Nicolaitan basilica in Lateran
patriarchate, 108:14
Nortcaud bishop of Vercelli, 104:14
Nottingus bishop of Brescia, 105:91

Odelbert bishop of Acqui, 104:14
Odo, 108:21

Orphanage (orphanotrophium), see
Schola Cantorum
Orte, 105:82, 106:8
Ostia, 103:38-40,104:45A, 105:50-52,
106:16, 107:66, 70, 108:9

Pammachius’s titulus, 103:21
Paradise, the, at St Peter’s, 103:34
Paschal ! pope, 100:passim, 101:2,
102:3-4, 103:2-3, 104:3-4, 105:17
Paul pope, 105:36, 107:14
Paul bishop of Populonia, 107:57, 69-
72, 74-75, 108:54, 61
Paul deacon of Ravenna, 105:91
Paul deacon, intruding bishop of
Piacenza, 107:64

Paul the guardian of the books, 108:37,
45

Pavia, 104:18, 107:23, 25-6
Pentapolis, 107:25
Pepo deacon [of Capua], 107:43
Peter bishop of Alexandria (5th
century), 107:42
Peter bishop of Arezzo, 105:91
Peter bishop of Gabii, 108:9

Peter bishop of Spoleto, 105:91
Peter bishop ofVolterra, 104:14
Peter magister militum, 105:101-102
Peter, envoy of Bulgarian king,
108:46-50, 56-57, 61, 63-64
Peter, father of pope Benedict III,
106:1

Petronacius bishop [of Albano],
105:92, (unnamed) 106:16, cf. 108:9
Phinehas, 108:19

Photius patriarch of Constantinople,
107:19, 38-41, 70- 72, 75-76,
108:22-32, 34, 39-43
Piacenza, 107:64
Picco bishop of Ascoli, 104:14
Populonia, 107:57, 69, 75
Porto, 103:38, 104:45A, 46A, 105:29,
48, 54, 67, 76, 77, 106:9, 20,
107:39, 69, 108:9
Portuensis Gate, 105:39
Praetextatus, cemetery of, 100:16

Quintus (place, St Leucius’s), 107:8

Racipert bishop of Nocera, 104:14
Radoald bishop of Porto, 106:9,
(unnamed) 20, 107:20, 39-40, 42
Raduald, father of pope Leo IV, 105:1,
(unnamed) 58

Ravenna, 105:91, 107:21, 23, 25, 26,
34, 50, 112:18
Renatus’s monastery, 103:29
Rheims, 107:58
Rieti, 100:26

Roman judges in France, 101:3; law,
105:112; world, 101:2
Romanus bishop of Bagnor^gio, 106:13
Rome, status of, 102:1
Rothad bishop of Soissons, 107:58-62

Sabbatina aqueduct, 103:19
Sabina, 100:40
St Abbacuc, relics, 105:41
SS Abbacyrus and Archangel’s church
ad Elephantum, 103:12
SS Abdon & Sennen, bodies, 107:53
St Agapitus, relics, 105:41
St Agatha’s monastery above Subura,
103:28

St Agatha’s postern, 104:22A, 106:23,
107:15

St Agatha’s cemetery outside St

INDEX

329

Pancras’s Gate, 105:35
SS Agatha and Caecilia’s monastery,
100:17-18

St Agnes’s basilica via Nomentana,
107:61

St Agnes’s oratory at St Praxedes’s
monastery, 100:11
St Alexander, relics, 105:41
St Anastasia’s titulus , 103:21, 112:17
St Anastasius pope, relics, 104:32B,
105:41

St Anastasius’s basilica/monastery
(Aqua Salvia), 103:28, 105:15,
106:24, 107:36

St Andrew’s oratory/church at St
Peter’s, 105:15, 55, 85, 89
St Andrew’s monastery Clivus Scauri,
103:28, 112:17

St Andrew’s monastery close to SS
Apostles’ (Philip & James), 112:14
St Angelo, postern overlooking Castle
of, 105:73

St Apollinaris’s ‘right’, 107:22
St Apollio, relics, 105:41 (? cf. St
Pollio)

SS Apostles’ (Philip and James)
church, 112:14, 18
St Aquila, relics, 105:41
St Aquinus, relics, 105:41
St Arseus, relics, 105:41
St Artemius, relics, 104:32B
St Asterius and his daughter, relics,
104:32B

St Audifax, relics, 105:41
St Aurea’s church at Ostia, 105:51
St Balbina’s church, 103:22, 106:25
St Barbara’s oratory in St Mary’s
basilica at St Laurence’s Without,
105:27

St Barbara’s oratory in SS Quattuor
Coronati, 105:42, 44
St Benedict, relics of two so named,
105:41

St Caecilia, body, vision of, 100:15,
relics, shrine, 100:16-17, 19,20,21,
105:41

St Caecilia’s church, 100:14, 17, 19,
20, 21, 28, 38, 103:21
St Caesarius in Palatio, monastery,
105:35

St Caesarius’s oratory in Lateran
patriarchate, 104:25

St Caesarius’s oratory in monastery
Corsarum, 105:28

St Caesarius’s basilica at Terracina,
105:65, 66

St Callistus’s monastery; see St
Mary’s/Callistus’s/Comelius’s
St Calepodius, relics, 103:32
St Callistus, relics, 103:32
St Candida, relics, 105:41
St Carpophorus, relics, 105:41
St Castorius, relics, 105:41
St Chrysogonus’s titulus , 103:21,

106:25

St Claudius, relics, 105:41
St Clement’s church, 103:15, 105:66,
76, 97

St Constantia, church close to St
Agnes’s, 107:61
St Cornelius, relics, 103:32
SS Cosmas & Damian’s basilica on
Via Sacra, 100:25, 38, 103:4, 12
SS Cosmas & Damian’s church at
Silva Candida, 105:29, 63
SS Cosmas & Damian’s church at
Subiaco, 105:65

St Crescentianus, relics, 104:32B
St Cyriac, relics, 104:32B
St Cyriac’s titulus in Thermis, 100:28,
103:20 (perhaps the next), 106:28,
29

St Cyriac’s church Via Ostiensis,
106:25

St Cyriaca, relics, 104:32B
St Diogenes, relics, 105:41
St Dionysius’s basilica, 106:23, 107:6,
14-15

St Erasmus’s monastery, 103:28
St Eugenia’s oratory (? in St Mary’s
basilica at St Laurence’s Without),
105:27

St Eusebius’s Mu/ws/basilica, 103:17,
107:17

St Eustace’s basilica, 103:12
St Exsuperantius, relics, 105:41
St Fabian, relics, 104:32B
St Felicissimus, relics, 105:41
St Felix, relics of four so named,
105:41

St Felix’s cemetery via Portuensis,
107:53

St Felix’s church in Pincis, 106:25
St Festus, relics, 105:41

330

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

St George’s deaconry, 103:14, 27, 30,
43

SS Gervasius & Protasius’s church at
Fondi, 105:65
St Gorgonius, relics, 103:6
St Gregory, homilies, 112:11, 16
St Gregory I’s body, 103:6-7; bed as
relic in an oratory in St Peter’s,
112:20

St Gregory’s oratory in St Peter’s,
103:6-7,41, 105:43, 107:36,54
St Gregory’s hostel in St Peter’s
portico, 112:17

St Hadrian’s basilica via
Sacra/deaconry at Three Fates,
103:15, 17, 105:19
St Hadrian’s oratory in St Peter’s,
105:37

St Hippolytus and 18 servants, relics,
105:41

St Hippolytus’s church at Porto, 105:76
St Innocentius pope, relics, 104:32B
St John the Baptist, 100:33, 103:41
St John the Evangelist, 103:41
St John the Evangelist’s church at
Castrum Rotundum, 108:36
St John Chrysostom, codex of, 112:16
SS John & Paul’s titulus , see
Pammachius’s titulus
SS John & Paul’s monastery at St
Peter’s, 105:93, 107:57
St Juliana, relics, 104:32B
St Largus, relics, 104:32B
St Laurence’s basilica outside the
walls, 103:16, 105:26, 27, 30, 56,
57, 59, 63, 75, 85, 97, 106:22, 29,
107:13, 14 (?), 82

St Laurence’s basilica in Lucina,
103:22, 104:22A, 107:15
St Laurence’s monastery in Pallacinis,
103:41, 106:23, 107:15
St Laurence’s oratory in Lateran
patriarchate, 103:35, 36
St Leo, bishop, relics, 104:32B;
oratory/ shrine at St Peter’s, 105:23,
31, 35

St Leo’s oratory in church of St
Stephen near St Laurence Without,
105:27

St Leo’s church at Leopolis, 105:105
St Leucius’s basilica (near Milvian
Bridge), 106:9, 11

St Liberalis, relics, 105:41
St Lucius, relics, 100:17, 20
St Lucy’s basilica in Orphea, 103:21,
105:18

St Lucy’s deaconry in Septem Vias,
103:29

St Lucy’s oratory in Renatus’s
monastery, 103:29
St Marcellinus, relics, 105:41
St Marcellus, relics, 105:41
St Marcellus’s titulus/basiUca, 103:22,
43, 105:92, 112:16
St Marcian’s church in domucella
Balnearola, 105:97
St Marius, relics, 105:41
St Mark’s titulus , 103:8-11, 18,

104:22A, 106:23, 107:15, 108:1
St Mark’s cemetery outside Appian
Gate, 106:30

St Martin’s basilica (ai monti), see SS
Silvester and Martin’s
St Martin’s church outside St Peter’s
Gate, 105:86

St Martin’s monastery close to St
Peter’s, 105:2-3, 21, 93, 108
St Mary, 100:15

St Mary’s church (? ad Praesepe),
102:6

St Mary’s church (Major) ad Praesepe,
100:30-37, 39, 103:16, 25, 104:20,
105:19, 106:18-21, 107:12, 59, 82,
108:6, 25, 112:11

St Mary’s basilica ad martyres, 103:16,
43 '

St Mary’s/Call istus’s/Comel ius’s

basilica in Trastevere (cf.
Callistus’s titulus), 103:17, 23, 25-
6, 30, 31, 32, 105:60, 106:22, 24,
30; monastery alongside, 103:23-4,
37

St Mary’s basilica Antiqua (Nova),
106:22, 24, 107:37

St Mary’s deaconry in Aquiro, 103:17,
105:62

St Mary’s deaconry in Cosmedin,
103:20, 107:11, 16, 36, 52
St Mary’s church in Domnica, 100:11-
14, 40

St Mary’s deaconry/basilica in Via
Lata, 103:16, 17, 104:22A, 106:23,
107:15

St Mary’s church in Schola Saxonum,

INDEX

331

105:86

St Mary’s oratory called Mediana at St
Peter’s, 103:34, 105:37
St Mary’s oratory at the ambo in St
Peter’s, 105:43

St Mary’s, oratory in Lateran
patriarchate, 107:81
St Mary’s church in monastery
Corsarum, 105:28

St Mary’s basilica close to St
Laurence’s Without, 105:26,27,56,
59, 63, 75, 85

St Mary’s church at Anagni, 105:76
St Mary’s church at Aurelia, 105:98
St Mary’s church at Frascati, 105:62
St Mary’s church in Monterano, 112:16
St Mary’s church at Porto, 105:67
St Mary’s church in Arrano, 104:27A;

at Moreno, called Narrano, 105:62
St Mary’s church at Sabina, 100:40
St Mary’s basilica in Vico Sardorum,
105:11, 83, 86, 109
St Maurus, relics, 104;32B
St Memmia, relics, 104:32B
St Maximus, relics, 100:17,20
St Mennas’s church, 100:26
St Narcissus, relics, 105:41
St Nicander, relics, 104:32B
St Nicholas’s oratory in St Mary’s
basilica at St Laurence’s Without,
105:27

St Nicholas’s oratory at St Mary’s in
Cosmedin, 107:52

St Nicholas’s oratory at SS Quattuor
Coronati, 105:44
St Nicostratus, relics, 105:41
St Nympha’s church at Porto, 105:29
St Pancras’s Gate, 105:35
St Pastor’s oratory at St Peter’s, 105:43
St Paul, apostle, 102:2, 112:8;

intercession of, 105:51, 53, 71, 73
St Paul’s basilica, 103:18,27,30,
104:44A, 105:4,13,96,105:12,96,
106:22, 26, 27, 28, 31,107:13, 17,
37, 82, 112:12

St Paulina, relics, 104:32B, 105:41
St Peregrinus’s hostel, 100:18,105:73;

gate looking towards, 105:73
St Peter, apostle, 100:2,102:8,107:50,
70,108:17,48,112:10; intercession
of, 105:51, 53, 71, 73, 95; ‘right’
of, 107:22; service of, 105:80;

St Peter’s basilica, 100:2, 5, 7-8, 15,
18, 23, 27,38, 40, 103:6, 7, 13, 19,
34-5, 41, 44, 104:7, 10, 11, 13,
26A, 30B, 44A, 47A, 48B, 105:4,
13-14, 22, 24, 32, 55, 61, 67, 84,
108, 105:9, 14, 20, 22-4, 31-7, 43,
47, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64-8, 84-5, 87-
90, 93-5, 105-9, 111, 106:12, 20,
22, 26-7, 29, 33-6, 107:4, 6-7, 13,
14, 17, 18, 36, 54, 66, 79-81, 83,
108:5, 9, 32, 112:5, 6, 10, 20
St Peter’s church at Centumcellae,
100:26

St Peter’s church at Leopolis, 105:104,
109

St Peter’s church at Maruli, 105:62
St Peter’s Gate, 105:86
St Peter’s portico, 100:7, 112:17
SS Peter & Marcellinus’s church (via
Merulana?), 106:30
SS Peter & Paul, bodies, 104:44A;
vigils of, 105:74

SS Peter and Paul, Sergius and
Bacchus, Silvester and Martin’s
monastery at SS Silvester and
Martin’s, 104:39A

St Petronilla’s basilica, 100:5, 105:36,
86

St Pollio, relics, 104:32B (? cf. St
Apollio)

St Praxedes, relics, 105:41
St Praxedes’s church/monastery, 100:8-
11, 103:29, 105:15
St Prisca, relics, 105:41
SS Processus & Martinian, relics,
100:5

SS Processus & Martinian, oratory at
St Peter’s, 100:5, 6, 23, 105:36
SS Protus, relics, 105:41
St Pudentiana, relics, 105:41
St Pudentiana’s titulus, 103:20,112:17
SS Quattuor Coronati, relics, 105:41
SS Quattuor Coronati, titulus ,

105:4,6,10, 22, 41-2, 44-5, 56, 57,
75, 83, 86, 89, 108, 112:2, 4, 15-
16; cf. Aemiliana’s titulus
St Quirilla, relics, 104:32B
St Quirinus, bishop, relics, 104:32B
St Romanus’s basilica outside Salarian
Gate, 104:25

St Rufina’s basilica at Silva Candida,
105:66

332

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

St Saba’s monastery, 103:28
St Sabina’s church, 101:3
St Satuminus’s outside Salarian Gate,
103:5

St Scholastica’s monastery, cf. SS
Silvester, Benedict & Scholastica’s
St Sebastian, relics, 103:6, 105:41
St Sebastian’s cemetery in Catacumbas,
via Appia, monastery at, 107:53
St Sebastian’s basilica at Frascati,
105:37, 60, 106:28

SS Sergius & Bacchus’s monastery at
Lateran, 100:22

SS Sergius & Bacchus’s monasteiy
called Callinicum, 106:26
SS Sergius & Bacchus’s church,
103:12

St Severianus, relics, 105:41
St Severus, relics, 105:41
St Silvester, relics, 104:32B
St Silvester’s (pope Paul’s) church/
monastery, 103:29,106:23; 107:14,
15; cf. St Dionysius’s basilica
St Silvester’s church/monastery on
Mount Soracte, 103:12, 105:23,
112:17

St Silvester’s oratory in Lateran palace,
105:62

SS Silvester and Martin’s (or St
Martin’s) basilica/t/tw/u^ (and
monastery of SS Peter & Paul,
Sergius & Bacchus, Silvester &
Martin), 103:17, 104:5, 25, 27A-
29A, 31B-32B, 33-5, 36A-39A, 41,
105:98

SS Silvester, Benedict & Scholastica’s
monastery at Subiaco, 105:46
St Simphronianus, relics, 105:41
St Simplicius, relics, 105:41
St Sisianus, relics, 104:32B
St Smaragdus, relics, 104:32B
St Sophia’s church at Constantinople,
108:46

St Soter, relics, 104:32B
St Soteris, relics, 104:32B
St Stephen, relics, 104:32B
St Stephen’s basilica on Caelian Hill,
103:16, 105:56

St Stephen’s church close to St
Laurence’s Without, 105:27
St Stephen’s basilica via Latina, 105:43
St Stephen Major’s monastery near St

Peter’s, 100:2, 27

St Stephen’s oratory in Schola
Cantorum, 104:24A
St Stephen’s church at Aurelia, 105:98
SS Stephen & Cassian’s monastery at
St Laurence’s Without, 105:30
SS Stephen & Silvester’s monastery,
cf. St Silvester’s (pope Paul’s)
church/ monastery
St Susanna’s church, 103:20
St Symmetrius, relics, 105:41
SS Symmetrius & Caesarius’s
monastery (Leo IV’s house,
Corsarum monastery), 105:25, 28,
58

St Synzygius’s church at Blera, 105:75
St Theodore, relics, 104:32B
St Theodore’s deaconry, 103:15
St Theodore’s basilica in territory of
Cora, 104:25B,30A
St Theopiste, relics, 104:32B
St Thomas’s oratory in St Andrew’s
monastery, 112:14

St Tiburtius, relics, 100:17, 20, 103:6
St Urban, relics, 100:17, 20
St Valentine’s church, 103:22
St Valentine’s monastery at Nami/
Temi, 107:16
St Valerian, 100:16-17, 20
St Venantius, relics, 105:41
St Venantus, relics, 105:41
St Victorinus, relics, 105:41
St Vincent’s church at Frascati, 105:94
St Vitalis’s, 103:20, 107:36
St Vitus’s monastery, 106:24
StXystus II pope, relics, 100:5,105:41
St Xystus’s church, 103:22, 105:25
St Xystus’s oratory at SS Quattuor
Coronad, 105:44

SS Xystus and Fabian’s oratory at St
Peter’s, 100:24

St Zeno’s oratory at St Praxedes’s,
relics, 100:10
Salarian Gate, 104:25
Samuel bishop [of Chonae], 107:18
Saracens (cf. Agareni), 103:38,
104:44A-47A, 105:4, 7, 22, 24, 32,
39,46-7,49,52,61, 67-8,77,83,
99, 106:12, 22, 35, 107:67, 79,
108:17

Sardinia, 105:48, 107:56

INDEX

333

Saviour’ s/Con stantinian/Lateran
basilica, 100:22, 103:37, 40,

104:19, 105:17, 106:17- 18, 21,
107:12, 31, 81, 112:12-13
Saviour’s monastery at Rieti, 100:26
Saxon(s), 104:46A, 105:20; bowl(s),
105:58, 66,106:34,107:11; dextra,
105:104; king, 106:34; cf Schola
Saxonum

Saxons, postern of, 105:73
Saxu abbot of SS John & Paul’s,
107:57

Schola Cantorum (Orphanotrophium),
104:2, 104:24, 112:17, cf St
Stephen’s oratory
Schola Francorum, 104:46A
Schola Saxonum, 105:73, 86
Scultinna river, 112:3
Selymbria, 108:35

Senate (Rome), 102:7-8, 104:18,

105:110, 106:4, 11, 107:7, 112:6
senators (Rome), 103:4, 108:3, 7, 32,
38, 112:3; (Ravenna), 107:25
Sergius II pope, 104:passim, 105:4-5,
16-17, 98, 106:2, 107:2-3, 108:1-2
Sergius, father of pope Sergius II,
104:1

Sergius magister militum , 105:50
Sessorian, see Jerusalem church
Seufred bishop of Piacenza, 107:64
Siconulf prince of the Beneventans,
104:17

Sigifrid bishop of Reggio (nell’Emilia),

104:14

Silva Candida, 105:29,63,66, 108:9
Silvester subdeacon, 108:62
Sisimund bishop of Aprutium
(T6ramo), 104:14
Sisinnius protospatharius, 108:35
Soissons, 107:58
Solomon, 112:16

Soracte, Mount, 103:12, 105:23,

112:17

Spoleto, 105:91, 108:20

Stephen IV pope, 100:5, 104:3, 108:1

Stephen V pope, 112:passim

Stephen bishop of Nepi, 108:13, 34-64

Strategis spatharius , 108:37

Subiaco, 105:46, 65

Subura, 103:28

Suppo archiminister , 108:42-45, 60

Talarus, later bishop [of Mintumae],
father of pope Hadrian II, 108:1
Temi, 107:16

Terracina, 105:65, 66
[Theodore] patriarch of Jerusalem,
representative of, 108:46, 50-58, 63
Theodore regionarius , father of pope
Nicholas, 107:1-2
Theodore scriniarius , 106:11
Theodore, border-guard, 107:72
Theodosius spatharius , 108:59
Theognostus, patriarchal hegumenus,
108:35

Theopert, 108:21

Theophilus, deposed bishop [of
Amorium], 107:18
Theophilus emperor, 106:33, 107:18
Thessalonica, 108:35
Thessaly, 108:53

Theutberga, wife of king Lothair,
107:44-45, 50

Theutgaud archbishop of Trier, 107:46-
50, 108:10

[Thomas metropolitan of Tyre]
representative of patriarchate of
Antioch, 108:46, 50-58, 63
Three Fates, 103:17
Tiber river, 104:22A, 105:39, 106:23,
107:15, 66
Ticinum, 112:4
Todi, 106:9

Toringar bishop of Concordia, 104:14
Totarum (place), 105:48
Trevi, 107:74
tricesimal custom, 107:34
Trier, 107:45, 108:10
Valentine pope, 102:passim, 103:3,
104:4, 105:17
Velletri, 108:13
vestiarius , 107:34
Vestina’s titulus , 107:36
Via Appia, 107:53

Via Lata, 102:1,106:23,107:15,112:1
Via Nomentana, 107:61
Via Portuensis, 107:53
Via Sacra, 100:25, 38, 106:22
Vicus Sardorum, 105:11, 83, 86, 109
Vicus of Saxons, portico near, 105:20
Vitalis, bishop (5th century), 107:20,
42

Viulzachara villa, 112:3

334

THE NINTH-CENTURY POPES

Vuldo count, 104:14

Waldrada, concubine/wife of Lothar II,
107:44-46

walls and gates of Rome, 105:38-40
Walter, 108:21
Wifrid count, 104:14

Zacharias bishop of Anagni, librarian
of the Roman see, 107:20, 39-40,
42, 108:10, 112:1
Zacharias, deposed bishop, 107:18

Anonymus, squire to pope Hadrian II,
108:2

Anonyma, mother of pope Sergius II,

104:1

1 Flaminian Gate

2 St Felix in pincis basilica

3 Three Sickles arch

4 St Laurence’s titulus in Lucina

5 St Gregory’s oratory in Campus
Martius

6 St Silvester’s (pope Paul’s)
monastery

7 St Apollinaris’ basilica/church
(inside Rome)

8 St Peter’s Gate

9 St Eustace’s deaconry (xenodochium

in Platana)

10 St Mary’s church ad martyres

11 St Marcellus’ titulus

12 Apostles’ basilica

13 St Andrew’s monastery by Apostles’
basilica

14 St Mary’s deaconry on Via Lata

15 St Mark’s titulus

16 St Laurence’s monastery in
Pallacinis

17 St Laurence’s titulus in Damaso

18 St Mary’s (Julia’s) monastery

19 St Mary’s (Ambrose’s) monastery

20 Archangel’s deaconry with St
Abbacyrus’ altar

21 Antoninus, bridge of

22 St Caecilia’s titulus

23 St Chrysogonus’ titulus and
monastery

24 St Mary’s (Callistus’) titulus in
Trastevere

25 Sabbatina Aqueduct

26 St Pancras’ Gate

27 Portuensis Gate

28 Nomentan Gate

29 St Cyriac’s titulus

30 St Susanna’s titulus

31 St Agatha’s deaconry

32 St Vitalis’ titulus

33 St Agatha’s monastery/basilica over
Subura

34 SS Sergius and Bacchus’ oratory in
Callinicum

35 St Martina’s altar/basilica

36 St Hadrian’s deaconry

37 SS Sergius and Bacchus’ deaconry
inside Rome

38 St Mary’s deaconry Antiqua

39 St Theodore’s deaconry

40 St George’s deaconry at the
Velabrum

41 St Mary’s deaconry in Cosmedin

42 St Anastasia’s titulus

43 St Lucy’s deaconry in Septem Vias

44 St Andrew’s monastery in Clivus
Scauri

45 SS John and Paul’s (Pammachius’)
titulus

46 SS Cosmas and Damian’s deaconry
on Via Sacra

47 Temple of Rome

48 Colosseum

49 St Agapitus’ monastery ad vincula

50 St Peter’s ad vincula (Apostles’,
Eudoxia’s) titulus

51 St Laurence ad Formonsum church

52 St Pudentiana’s (Pudens’) titulus

53 St Euphemia’s (and Archangel’s)
basilica/monastery

54 SS Cosmas and Damian’s monastery
by praesepe

55 St Mary’s basilica ad praesepe

56 St Hadrian’s (and St Laurence’s)
monastery

57 Dua Fuma monastery with ‘St
Agnes’ oratory

58 St Praxedes’ titulus

59 St Andrew’s church by the praesepe

60 St Andrew’s monastery Massa
Juliana (cata Barbara patricia)

61 St Vitus’ deaconry

62 St Eusebius’ basilica

63 St Laurence’s Gate

64 St Isidore’s monastery

65 St Bibiana’s monastery

66 St Lucy’s deaconry in Orfea

67 St Silvester’s (and/or St Martin’s)
titulus/deaconry

68 St Clement’s titulus

69 SS Quattuor Coronati (Aemiliana’s)
titulus

70 SS Marcellinus and Peter’s by the
Lateran

71 Jerusalem basilica at the Sessorian

72 Lateran patriarchate

73 Saviour’s/Constantinian basilica

74 St Stephen’s monastery by Lateran

75 St Pancras’ monastery by Lateran

76 Constantinian baptistery

77 St Sergius’ monastery

78 SS Andrew and Bartholomew’s
(pope Honorius’) monastery

79 St Erasmus’ monastery in Monte
Celio

80 St Agatha’s monastery in Caput
Africae

81 St Stephen’s basilica on Monte Celio

82 St Mary’s deaconry Dominica

83 Tempulus’ monastery with St
Agatha’s oratory

84 St Xystus’ titulus

85 Monastery de Corsas with St
Caesarius’ oratory

86 St Symmetrius’ monastery

87 SS Nereus and Achilleus’ deaconry

88 St John’s church at the Latin Gate

89 l.atin Gate

90 Appian Gate

91 St Balbina’s titulus

92 St Donatus’ monastery

93 St Prisca’s titulus

94 St Saba’s (Celia Nova) monastery

95 St Sabina’s titulus

96 St Boniface’s deaconry

97 St Paul’s Gate

98 St Mary’s deaconry in Aquiro

99 Hadrianium

100 St Mary’s deaconry at Hadrianium

101 St Mary’s Deaconry outside St
Peter’s Gate

102 Naumachia

103 St Peregrinus’ in Lord’s Hospital

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Translated Texts for Historians"

See other formats